nl^  "^^ 


EfV;   'i^y*.*,',  ^        "^^wiit,,  ^   '^^•#'  ^^3B^  ■^ffei.'fe  ^«.,**  ^^ 

^tk       \.^  it.    ■'■■.  \  ^M^ 


*:'^*i. 


VJBP> ..         ^ 


%.. 


:■'%! 

^    M 


OF  Trip. 

University  of  California. 


Class 


Zbc  XHmrersiti?  of  Cbicaao 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER  ' 


THE  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 
IN  ENGLAND 


A    DISSERTATION     SUBMITTED    TO    THE     FACULTY    OF    THE    GRADUATE 

DIVINITY    SCHOOL,  IN    CANDIDACY    FOR    THE    DEGREE 

OF    DOCTOR    OF    PHILOSOPHY 

(department   of   church    history) 


BY 

WALLACE   ST.  JOHN 


V 


PRINTED    BY 

Zbc  TIlnlversitB  of  Cbicago  press 

1900 


'THEY  SHALL  SIT  EVERY  MAN  UNDER  HIS  VINE 
AND  UNDER  HIS  FIG  TREE  :  AND  NONE  SHALL 
MAKE  THEM  AFRAID:  FOR  THE  MOUTH  OF  THE 
LORD  OF  HOSTS  HATH  SPOKEN  IT.  FOR  ALL 
PEOPLE  WILL  WALK  EVERY  ONE  IN  THE  NAME 
OF  HIS  GOD,  AND  WE  WILL  WALK  IN  THE  NAME 
OF  THE  LORD  OUR  GOD  FOR  EVER  AND  EVER" 
MICAH  4 : 4-5 


PREFACE. 

This  work  was  undertaken  in  connection  with  a  course  of  study  in 
the  Department  of  Church  History  in  the  University  of  Chicago.  My 
first  task  was  to  examine  the  original  sources  to  be  found  in  the  libra- 
ries of  Chicago.  Though  the  number  of  these  was  not  large,  the 
general  result  was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  produce  in  me  a  great  desire 
to  continue  my  researches.  Early  in  the  year  1899  I  journeyed  to 
London,  and  there  began  work  in  the  British  Museum.  In  the  great 
library  there  search  brought  to  light  many  important  documents  bear- 
ing upon  the  subject.  The  Williams  Library  furnished  a  few  additional 
sources. 

While  the  number  of  writings  that  have  been  made  use  of  in  the 
preparation  of  this  treatise  is  large,  and  every  reasonable  effort  has 
been  put  forth  to  obtain  everything  that  has  any  important  bearing 
upon  the  discussion,  I  can  make  no  claim  of  having  exhausted  the  sub- 
ject. I  am  confident,  however,  that  if  important  documents  should  be 
discovered  to  contradict  the  general  trend  of  the  history  as  here  set 
forth,  they  will  be  found  to  be  exceptions. 

By  way  of  acknowledgment  let  me  say  that  to  Dean  Eri  B.  Hulbert 
is  due  credit  for  fostering  the  spirit  of  investigation  which  has  made  it 
possible  for  me  to  do  work  of  this  nature.  Further,  he  has  encouraged 
me  in  and  advised  about  this  work  to  such  an  extent  as  to  lay  me  under 
the  greatest  obligation  to  him. 

To  the  officers  of  the  Newberry  Library  of  Chicago,  in  which  I  did 
much  work  and  was  shown  every  possible  courtesy,  I  wish  to  express 
my  highest  appreciation. 

In  like  manner  the  resources  of  the  library  of  the  British  Museum 
and  the  Williams  Library  were  placed  at  my  disposal.  In  them  I  was 
afforded  unexcelled  opportunities,  and  by  their  officers  was  treated  with 
unvarying  kindness. 


INTRODUCTION. 

A  MIGHTY  and  prolonged  contest  for  religious  liberty  is  one 
of  the  marked  characteristics  of  modern  history.  From  it  has 
resulted  the  most  important  attainment  of  recent  centuries.  In 
this  treatise  I  purpose  to  study  so  much  of  this  contest  as 
belongs  to  England.  The  minds  of  men  have  ever  been  in  a 
state  of  doubt  and  uncertainty  concerning  this  phase  of  the 
general  Reformation  movement.  It  would  almost  seem  that  in 
some  conspicuous  instances  historians  have  been  led  to  their 
conclusions  concerning  it  by  denominational  pride,  rather  than 
by  evidence.     There  is  much  conflict  of  statement. 

John  M.  Baxter,  in  his  "Church  History  of  England,"  has 
stated  that 

Whatsoever  merit  Independency  may  claim  for  advocating  the  rights  of 
conscience,  it  is  certain  that  the  first  clear  and  argumentative  assertion  of 
those  rights  proceeded  from  the  pen  of  a  suffering  churchman,  sequestered 
for  no  greater  offense  than  that  of  loyalty,  Jeremy  Taylor  (p.  607). 

Henry  Martin  Dexter,  the  author  of  "Congregationalism  as 
Seen  in  its  Literature,"  declares: 

Robert  Browne,  I  must  think,  is  entitled  to  the  proud  preeminence  of 
having  been  the  first  writer  clearly  to  state  and  defend  m  the  English  tongue 
the  true — and  now  accepted  —  doctrine  of  the  relation  of  the  magistrate  to 
the  Church  (p.  loi). 

Robert  Browne,  the  founder  of  the  sect  known  as  "  Brownists," 
was  also  the  father  of  Independency,  using  the  word  in  its 
narrower  sense.  Thus  the  leading  historian  of  the  Congrega- 
tionalists  claims  for  his  denomination  the  glory  of  having  begun 
the  contest  for  religious  liberty. 

David  Masson,  in  his  "Life  and  Times  of  Milton,"  makes  a 
still  different  statement : 

Not  to  the  Church  of  England,  however,  nor  to  English  Puritanism  at 
large,  does  the  honour  of  the  first  perception  of  the  full  principle  of  Liberty  of 
Conscience,  and  its  assertion  in  English,  belong.  That  honor  has  to  be 
assigned,  I  believe,  to  the  Independents  generally,  and  the  Baptists  in 
particular.     (Vol.  Ill,  p.  987.) 


6  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Philip  Schaff,  in  his  "  Progress  of  Religious  Freedom,"  has 
made  the  more  general  assertion  that  "the  Baptists  and  Quakers 
alone  (and  Protestant  denominations  of  later  date)  were  con- 
sistent advocates  of  universal  toleration,  and  put  it  in  their 
creeds"    (p.    55). 

None  of  these  statements  lacks  in  positiveness,  nor  is  there 
one  of  these  historians  whose  name  does  not  give  weight  to  his 
assertion  ;  yet,  combined,  they  tend  to  produce  an  uncertainty 
in  the  public  mind. 

There  are  those  who  say  :  "The  battle  is  won  ;  why  give  our 
attention  to  it  now?"  Happy  should  we  be  could  we  know  that 
the  battle  is  won  for  the  entire  future.  Persecution,  though 
banished,  may  come  back.  The  struggle  of  the  early  church  for 
place  and  power  was  rewarded  during  the  reign  of  Constantine  ; 
but  an  enthroned  church  soon  became  an  intolerant  church.  Cen- 
turies later  a  spirit  of  inquiry  arose  in  Germany  and  led  quickly 
to  active  dissent.  The  right  to  differ  in  religious  thought  from 
the  pope  and  councils  was  claimed  by  Luther  ;  but  he  soon  con- 
tended that  none  ought  to  differ  from  him ;  and  to  this  the 
docile  Melanchthon  agreed.  Calvin  made  the  same  claim  of 
right  for  himself,  and  enforced  by  voice  and  action  the  same 
denial  of  liberty  to  others.  Beza  vehemently  denied  the  right 
of  dissent,  while  John  Knox  poured  forth  a  tempest  of  wrath 
against  those  who  disagreed  with  him  in  the  faith.  In  England 
scores,  now  Catholics,  now  Protestants,  were  tortured  and  put  to 
death  for  their  religious  beliefs.  This  violence  has  passed,  and 
we  would  fain  assure  ourselves  that  complete  freedom  of  con- 
science, at  least  among  the  Anglo-Saxon  peoples,  has  been 
attained  and  established  as  our  permanent  inheritance. 

But  that  this  contest  is  over  is  too  much  to  assume.  Liberty 
of  conscience  cannot  be  complete  while  the  state  relates  itself 
peculiarly  to  any  religious  organization.  A  perfect  tolera- 
tion may  be  possible  under  such  circumstances,  since  toleration 
assumes  the  existence  of  the  undesirable.  Conscience,  however, 
will  not  have  full  liberty  until  the  state  ceases  by  active  favor  or 
passive  attitude  to  affect  matters  with  which  the  conscience 
should  be  exclusively  concerned.     The  free  acceptance  of  articles 


INTR  OD  UC  TION  7 

of  faith  and  the  untrammeled  conduct  of  life,  when  that  conduct 
interferes  with  no  other's  rights,  are  yet  to  be  admitted  by  the 
British  state  and  the  English  established  church.  Until  it  is 
admitted  that  the  sovereign  has  no  ecclesiastical  prerogative ; 
that  the  people,  of  all  religious  views,  are  sovereign  ;  and  that 
civil  office  is  exclusively  civil,  the  atmosphere  will  not  be 
favorable  to  liberty  of  conscience.  Different  classes  of  common 
people,  one  after  another,  have  extorted  from  an  unwilling  ruling 
class,  piece  by  piece,  its  permission  to  exercise  their  rights. 
The  principles  which  have  been  the  life  of  this  contest  for  free- 
dom have  not  yet  become  infused  into  the  national  body.  Three 
and  one-half  centuries  have  not  been  long  enough  to  eradicate 
the  demand  for  conformity.  More  than  this,  the  production  of 
sentiment  ought  not  to  cease  when  a  mere  majority  has  been  led 
into  the  truth.  Victory  in  such  a  struggle  as  this  ought  to  mean 
more  than  gaining  an  ascendency.  It  ought  to  mean  the  domi- 
nance of  the  victorious  principle  over  the  national  and  social  life 
in  general. 

To  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  of  America  the  historical 
interest  in  this  struggle  is  great,  as  it  bears  so  directly  upon  the 
attainment  of  our  highly  prized  liberties.  In  general,  the  Anglo- 
Saxon  contest  may  be  said  to  be  one.  It  was  the  Englishman 
striving  for  his  liberties  that  formed  the  warp  and  woof  of  the 
original  American  social  fabric.  The  literature  of  the  two 
countries  overlapped.  The  effect  of  any  great  movement  in 
either  country  extended  to  the  utmosfr  boundaries  of  the  English 
language.  Here  also  it  may  be  said  that  the  principles  giving' 
rise  to  this  contest  have  not  yet  been  generally  assimilated  intq^ 
the  Christian  consciousness.  The  view  of  John  Robinson,  o"f 
Pilgrim  fame,  that  new  light  should  yet  break  forth  from  God's 
Word,  is  not  yet  generally  admitted,  even  in  fhedry.  And  heresy 
seems  little  less  a  bugbear  to  many  men  now  than  it  did  in 
the  times  of  the  reformers,  when  manners  were  less  polished. 

It  is  certainly  a  matter  of  interest  to  trace  this  evolution  in 
Christian  thought;  to  watch  the  shifting  motives  that  animated 
the  contestants,  the  changing  of  position  in  persons  and  organi- 
zations.     It    is    of    interest     to    inquire    who    in    England    first 


8  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

perceived  and  disclosed  this  principle  of  liberty  of  conscience, 
how  it  happened  that  they  discovered  it,  and  especially  how  it  was 
that  they  were  peculiar  in  their  findings.  In  so  doing  we  may 
have  our  attention  healthfully  drawn  to  some  sources  of  truth, 
and  some  principles  for  its  discovery,  that  we  may  at  least  apply 
to  the  solution  of  other  problems,  if  not  to  the  further  solution 
of  the  same  problem. 

Again,  a  review  of  this  contest  will  make  possible  a  more 
accurate  estimate  of  the  characters  engaged  in  it.  The  relative 
loftiness  of  their  ideals,  and  the  comparative  purity  of  their 
motives,  as  well  as  the  strength  or  weakness  of  their  purposes, 
and  the  refinement  or  crudeness  of  their  manners,  will  frequently 
appear.  It  will  help  us  to  answer  the  questions  :  Are  Christians 
advancing  or  retrograding  in  ideals,  in  qualities,  and  in  conduct  ? 
Was  the  Christian  character  which  was  developed  by  the  rigors 
of  the  Reformation  period,  or  the  subsequent  periods  of  perse- 
cution, superior  to  the  product  of  our  times  of  peace  ? 

At  the  beginning  of  this  investigation  it  is  well  to  bear  in 
mind  that  those  engaged  in  securing  their  religious  and  political 
rights  were  not  entirely  agreed  in  what  they  wanted.  The  vari- 
ous regiments  taking  part  in  the  onslaught  did  not  form  an 
unbroken  line;  did  not  even  advance  unanimously  to  storm  a 
given  point.  The  utmost  confusion  reigned  among  the  defending 
as  well  as  the  attacking  combatants.  And  most  of  the  con- 
testing parties  shifted  their  positions  from  time  to  time,  and 
changed  the  object  of  their  struggles.  The  objects  sought 
ranged  from  the  narrowest  limited  toleration  possible  to  the 
fullest  right  of  private  judgment.  It  may  be  further  added  that 
there  were  those  who  sought  to  obtain  indulgence  in  license 
even,  using  the  plea  of  conscientious  scruple.  Yet  this  class 
made  but  little  gain  and  never  became  formidable. 

One  class  claimed  the  right  to  a  peculiar  toleration  which  it 
was  unready  to  concede  to  others.  Being  firmly  convinced  that 
their  doctrines  alone  were  true,  and  at  the  same  time  that  the 
enthroned  church  was  invincible  to  them,  they  besought  special 
consideration  from  the  existing  powers.  Their  theory  had  no 
place  in  it  for  liberty,  but  the  exigencies  of  the   time  put  right 


INTR  OD  UC  TION  9 

under  the  necessity  of  seeking  toleration  of  might.  From  this 
narrowly  limited  conception  of  an  exigency,  theories  of  tolera- 
tion ranged  upward  to  the  conception  of  full  freedom  of  con- 
science. 

The  charity  of  one  party  was  bounded  by  respectable 
Protestantism;  another  included  all  Protestants  except  Unitari- 
ans. Again,  all  Christians  were  hought  admissible.  The 
extremists  found  a  place  for  even  the  Jew  and  the  Turk. 

Liberty  of  conscience  is  really  not  a  degree  of  toleration  at 
all;  it  lies  in  a  different  realm.  The  idea  of  toleration  springs 
from  the  theory  that  the  government,  the  magistrate,  has  inalien- 
able prerogatives,  and  that  the  individual  exists  for  the  state.  The 
magistrate  is  the  final  authority  in  church  and  state,  and  may 
impose  his  views  upon  all.  Thus  elevated,  the  government  may 
condescend  to  allow  certain  persons  to  differ  from  it  in  theory. 
This  lenient  permission  is  toleration.  The  government  continues 
its  claim  of  domination,  and  its  right  again  to  become  intolerant. 
It  will  exercise  this  when  it  chooses.  Dr.  O.  W.  Holmes  is 
credited  with  saying  that  the  idea  of  toleration  is  an  insult  to 
mankind.  This  is  certainly  as  true  as  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
magistrate's  ecclesiastical  prerogative  is  an  insult  to  mankind. 
The  position  of  the  tolerating  authority  was  as  despotic  in 
theory  as  any  ever  held  by  a  tyrant.  The  condition  of  those 
indulged  was  nothing  better  than  petted  serfdom.  Toleration 
implies  an  inherent  inferiority  in  the  subject.^ 

The  idea  of  liberty  of  conscience  springs  from  the  theory 
that  the  final  object  of  the  state  is  man,  rather  than  the  reverse. 
Man  is  responsible  for  his  action,  and,  assuming  this  responsi- 
bility, his  action  accrues  to  his  own  debit  or  credit.  The  state 
exists  as  his  servant,  and  has  no  right  to  conflict  with  his 
interests   in  the  least.      Individual  accountability  to   God  in  all 

'  In  the  period  of  the  political  agitation  of  this  matter,  when  the  term  "  tolera- 
tion "  was  used  almost  exclusively  and  frequently  in  the  sense  of  liberty,  George 
Walker,  in  his  Plea,  written  with  the  approval  of  the  dissenting  ministers  of  the 
Midland  district,  said  :  "  Now,  toleration  is  but  an  invidious  term,  and  springs  out  of 
abuses,  which  do  no  credit  to  human  nature  or  to  religion.  It  is  a  mistaken  idea  that 
toleration  is  a  grace  and  favour ;  it  is  a  restoration  to  a  right  which  ought  never  to 
have  been  violated ;  it  is  on  the  part  of  the  state,  the  confession  of  a  wrong  which 
ought  never  to  have  been  practised." 


10  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

matters  of  conscience  demands  a  freedom  to  act  in  accordance 
with  conscience.  This  theory  dignifies  manhood.  It  sets  in 
motion  the  faculties  which  alone  can  effect  the  highest  develop- 
ment of  the  human  race.^ 

Late  philosophical  treatises  on  this  subject  by  churchmen, 
as  M.  Creighton  in  his  "  Persecution  and  Tolerance,"  and 
Phillips  Brooks  in  his  lecture  on  "Tolerance,"  do  not  take  this 
distinction  into  consideration.  Under  the  term  "tolerance"  they 
define  "  liberty  of  conscience,"  only  conceiving  it  in  its  ideal 
or  perfected  form.  Their  action  in  this  regard  is  not  justified  by 
the  history  of  the  movement.  While  not  all  the  advocates  of  the 
various  degrees  of  permission  or  freedom  discriminated  closely 
in  the  use  of  these  terms,  enough  of  them  did  so  to  place  the 
student  under  obligation  to  recognize  this  marked  difference. 
Brooks  has  well  considered  this  perfected  idea,  and  in  analysis 
has  found  it 

composed  of  two  elements,  both  of  which  are  necessary  to  its  true  existence, 
and  on  the  harmony  and  proportionate  blending  of  which  the  quality  of  tol- 
erance which  is  the  result  depends.  These  elements  are,  first,  positive  con- 
viction ;  and  second,  sympathy  with  men  whose  convictions  differ  from  their 
own. 

He  further  defines  it  as  "the  willing  consent  that  other  men 
should  hold  and  express  opinions  with  which  we  disagree,  until 
they  are  convinced  by  reason  that  those  opinions  are  untrue." 
A  very  different  view  from  this  was  held  by  Charles  James  Fox, 
who  said  that  "  the  only  foundation  for  tolerance  is  a  degree  of 
skepticism."  A  similar  thought  is  expressed  by  a  speaker  whom 
Bishop  Brooks  quotes  in  certain  remarks  concerning  the 
Puritans  in  America.  He  says  :  "  They  were  intolerant  as  all 
men  the  world  over,  in  all  time,  have  always  been,  and  always 
will  be  when  they  are  in  solemn  earnest  for  truth  or  error."  The 
utter  falsity  of  this  view  is  claimed  by  Frederick  Maurice  in  his 
statement  that  "it  is  the  natural  feeling  of  all  of  us  that  charity 

^In  1667  Thomas  Tomkins  wrote  a  pamphlet  on  The  Inconveniences  of  Tolera- 
tion, in  which  he  asserted  that  he  is  opposing  a  demand  for  limited  toleration. 
Though  he  uses  contradictory  language,  he  gives  expression  to  this  distinction.  He 
says :  "  Now  Liberty  of  Conscience  is  either  Absolute  or  Limited.  If  it  is  Limited  it 
is  no  longer  Liberty  of  Conscience."    (P.  I.     Newberry  Lib.) 


IN  TROD  UC  TION  1 1 

is  founded  on  the  uncertainty  of  truth.  I  believe  it  is  founded 
on  the  certainty  of  truth."  Pagan  tolerance,  which  is  frequently 
lauded,  does  arise  from  such  uncertainty  or  from  lack  of  interest, 
but  Christian  liberty  can  be  sustained  only  by  sincere  conviction. 

The  possible  causes  or  occasions  which  may  operate  to  make 
men  charitable  toward  the  existence  of  opinions  differing  from 
their  own  are  numerous,  as  are  also  their  various  possible  combi- 
nations. That  each  of  the  possible  combinations  has  operated 
upon  someone  at  some  time  may  readily  be  conceived.  Brooks 
names  six  elements,  as  follows:  (i)  indifference,  (2)  policy,  (3) 
helplessness,  (4)  human  respect,  (5)  spiritual  sympathy,  (6)  an 
appreciation  of  the  vastness  of  God's  truth.  This  may  help  to 
explain  the  attitude  of  many  who  tolerate  ;  but  it  is  by  no  means 
a  complete  outline  of  the  arguments  presented  by  the  host  of 
those  who  have  demanded  religious  freedom.  In  fact,  no  advo- 
cate of  religious  freedom  would  plead  guilty  to  the  accusation 
that  his  attitude  toward  it  arose  from  indifference.  The  indif- 
ferent man  was  the  one  who  conceded  rather  than  the  one  who 
sought.  The  arguments  set  forth  by  those  who  sought  may  be 
divided  into  religious  and  political.  Some  authors  argued  wholly 
from  a  religious  standpoint,  while  others  saw  the  political  side 
exclusively.  It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  classes  of  argu- 
ments appear.  Classes  of  thinkers  arose  in  each  dissenting 
body  that  appealed  for  rights  or  privileges.  Out  of  these 
classes  exceptions  arose  now  and  then,  as  is  to  be  expected 
where  a  movement  is  progressive. 

Here  in  the  realm  of  motive  we  shall  find  facts  worthy  of  our 
closest  observation.  The  merit  or  demerit  of  the  advocate  must 
depend  not  a  little  upon  his  motives.  To  recommend  an  action 
on  the  ground  that  all  opposition  to  it  will  be  vain  is  not  a  very 
creditable  performance  compared  with  the  recommendation  of 
the  same  action  because  of  human  sympathy  or  Christian  charity. 
To  urge  that  men  should  be  allowed  freedom  because  otherwise 
they  will  cause  trouble  is  not  on  a  par  with  the  insistence  that 
rights  to  this  freedom  inhere  in  men  as  created  beings.  The 
adherents  of  organizations  found  to  have  been  moved  by  lofty 
motives  to  take  the  part  they  did  in  this    great  struggle    cannot 


12  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

but  rejoice  now  that  the  record  of  their  denominations  is  so 
good. 

The  direct  occasion  for  the  rise  of  these  literary  campaigns 
was  persecution  in  some  form  or  other.  When  the  contest 
became  largely  political,  party  sympathy  caused  not  a  few  who 
were  not  themselves  suffering  to  enter  the  lists  for  their  oppressed 
friends.  Even  the  glorious  Milton  is  stirred  up  to  pour  forth 
his  irresistible  argument  for  "The  Liberty  of  Unlicensed  Print- 
ing," because  the  state  licenser  refused  him  permission  to  print 
his  pamphlet  on  divorce.  Let  us  not  be  cynical  in  our  criticism 
of  those  who  for  private  ends  have  pressed  their  claims  on  a 
dilatory  and  unworthy  government.  This  self-interest  was 
legitimate.  All  that  we  can  condemn  is  that  narrow  selfishness 
which  does  not  concede  to  others  the  same  blessings  sought  for 
ourselves. 

The  manner  of  seeking  these  ends  may  also  teach  us  some- 
thing about  these  discontented  people.  With  light  footstep  and 
quivering  voice  and  faint  hope  many  approached  the  crown. 
They  fawned  for  a  prized  favor.  They  admitted  not  only  the 
magistrate's  power  over  them,  but  also  his  prerogatives.  Happy 
were  they  if  he  did  not  turn  upon  them  in  violence  for  their  pre- 
sumption in  soliciting  the  longed-for  boon.  They  besought  an 
opportunity  to  live  and  believe  their  doctrines  unmolested.  They 
were  not  bold  enough  even  to  ask  for  public  advantages,  such 
as  buildings  or  the  privilege  of  public  worship.  They  did  not 
complain  of  persecution  in  general ;  they  only  asked  that  they 
might  be  exempt  from  it.  On  the  other  hand,  some  demanded 
of  the  sovereign  complete  liberty  of  thought.  They  read  the 
royal  law  to  the  magistrate,  pointing  out  to  him  that  his  narrow 
persecuting  course  was  condemned  by  Scripture,  by  reason,  and 
by  respectable  authorities.  They  bounded  his  sphere  of  author- 
ity, limiting  it  to  those  cases  where  one  individual  or  party 
brought  injury  to  another  or  to  the  state.  They  ruled  him  out 
of  the  whole  ecclesiastical  sphere  and  especially  out  of  the  realm 
of  conscience.  Thus  bold  even  to  rashness,  they  asserted  the 
rights  of  men.  They  did  not  fail  to  express  their  allegiance  to 
the  throne  and  their  willingness  to  sustain  it  in  its  civil  functions. 


INTR  OD  UC  TION  1 3 

Yet  they  sometimes  went  so  far  as  to  make  their  appeals  directly 
to  the  people,  in  whom  they  recognized  the  final  authority.  In 
this  latter  class  a  new  element  seemed  to  enter  the  national  life. 
Never  before  had  the  royal  blood  been  made  so  to  boil  by  the 
speech  of  orderly  and  peaceable  common  people.  Between 
these  two  extremes  various  other  attitudes  are  found.  They 
reveal  much  to  us  of  the  different  dissenting  movements  and  the 
persons  who  promoted  them. 

Heresy,  the  root  of  all  this  bitterness,  thrived  in  the  midst 
of  the  coercion  practiced.  The  first  inclinations  to  dissent  from 
the  newly  established  Protestant  dogmas  were  met  by  King 
Henry  VHI.  with  stringent  legal  enactments  and  their  rigid 
enforcement.  Regal  displeasure  and  Smithfield  fires  frowned 
upon  this,  which  was  regarded  as  a  most  frightful  form  of  wick- 
edness. It  was  classed  with  idolatry  and  blasphemy,  and  was 
regarded  as  blacker  and  more  reprehensible  than  fornication, 
theft,  or  even  murder.  It  was  stigmatized  as  soul-murder.  It 
was  quite  proper  for  King  Henry  to  revolutionize  the  preexist- 
ing conceptions,  but  the  deviation  of  any  from  him  was  a  gross 
license,  liable  to  overthrow  the  salvation  of  his  majesty's  loving 
subjects.     Yet  heresy  increased.      It  spread  throughout  the  land. 

Those  who  entered  this  contest  as  opponents  of  heresy 
explained  that  it  was  condemned  by  Scripture,  was  destructive 
of  souls  and  disturbing  to  the  peace.  The  magistrate  was  held 
responsible  for  obtaining  the  salvation  of  his  people  in  so  far  as 
lay  in  his  power.  To  join  in  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the 
established  church  was  necessary  to  salvation.  The  government 
could  enforce  this  conformity.  This  made  heresy  a  civil  crime 
as  well  as  an  ecclesiastical  one.  The  supporters  of  the  govern- 
ment were  accused  of  insincerity  in  their  claim  that  heresy  should 
be  stopped  for  the  good  of  souls.  They  are  reminded  that  their 
zeal  for  others  has  not  caused  them  to  begin  a  crusade  against 
immorality.  Outbreaking  sins  of  injustice  and  lust  were  said  to 
be  unheeded,  while  sober  men  were  attacked  for  heresy.  The 
heretics  were  sometimes  bold  enough  to  mention  that  it  was  his 
acceptance  of  the  way  called  heresy  that  brought  persecution 
upon   Paul.     They  pointed  out  that  the  early  Christians  had  no 


14  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

civil  powers  with  which  to  coerce  the  heretics.  The  most  they 
could  do  was  to  separate  them  from  their  company,  that  is,  from 
the  individual  society  with  which  they  had  been  associated. 
Whatever  judgment  Peter  might  declare  against  Ananias,  it  must 
be  executed  by  divine  power.  The  magistrate  and  the  supporters 
of  his  prerogative  had  recourse  to  the  examples  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, while  the  advocates  of  the  full  rights  of  private  judg- 
ment admitted  only  the  New  as  obligatory  upon  the  Christian. 
The  stress  laid  upon  the  examples  of  Moses  and  King  Josiah  as 
persecutors  caused  the  most  violent  opposition  to  schismatics. 
Persecuting  spirits  hid  behind  these  Old  Testament  characters 
with  a  complacency  almost  satanic.  In  citing  Scripture  these 
orthodox  disputants  usually  obtained  their  standards  and  criteria 
from  Israelitish  history.  On  the  other  hand,  the  advocates  of 
freedom  held  up  King  Jesus  as  ideal  and  standard.  His  example 
and  his  teaching  formed  much  of  the  evidence  which  they  pre- 
sented. Indeed,  the  contest  as  a  whole  is  little  else  than  a  con- 
flict between  certain  Hebrew  and  Christian  conceptions. 


CHAPTER  I. 

BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST,   OR  PREVIOUS  TO  THE  STUARTS. 

The  first  premonition  of  the  conquest  for  liberty  of  conscience 
in  England  came  just  before  the  outbreak  of  the  Reformation. 
In  the  year  1516  Sir  Thomas  More,  then  thirty-four  years  of  age, 
published  his  vision  of  "Utopia."  In  his  imagination  he  pic- 
tured a  nation  that  possessed  a  large  toleration.  King  Utopus  is 
represented  as  taking  but  little  interest  in  religious  thought. 

Therefore  all  this  matter  he  left  undiscussed  and  gave  to  everye  man 
libertie  and  choice  to  believe  what  he  woulde.  Savinge  that  he  earnestlye 
and  straightlye  charged  them,  that  no  man  shoulde  conceive  so  vile  and  base 
an  opinion  of  the  dignitie  of  man's  nature,  as  to  think  that  the  soules  do  die 
and  perishe  with  the  bodye ;  or  that  the  worlde  runneth  at  al  aventures, 
governed  by  no  divine  providence.' 

A  belief  in  future  rewards  and  punishments  was  also  demanded 
by  this  liberal  king,  who  would  not  persecute  those  who  dis- 
agreed with  him  in  opinion,  but  who  "earnestlye  and  straightlye 
charged  them"  not  to  disagree  with  him  in  these  particulars. 
Thus  we  find  a  conception  of  toleration  arising  in  a  great  mind 
as  a  possibility  ;  and  it  may  have  been  conceived  as  desirable. 
In  later  life  the  same  Sir  Thomas  More,  then  raised  to  a  high 
official  position,  was  a  bitter  persecutor.  This  fact  indicates  that, 
whatever  he  once  thought,  he  came  to  regard  toleration  as 
impracticable,  if  not  entirely  undesirable.  Nor  does  this  incident 
seem  worthy  of  a  place  in  the  historical  account  of  this  contest, 
save  as  a  premonition  of  the  future  attainment  which  should 
result  from  the  convulsion  that  was  so  near  at  hand. 

Nothing  is  plainer  than  that  the  English  established  church 
was  hostile  to  freedom  of  thought,  from  its  very  inception.  King 
Henry  VIII.,  once  so  zealous  for  the  Roman  hierarchy,  armed 
his  new  organization  with  full  equipment  to  enforce  the  views 
which  he  had  substituted  for  papal  dogmas.  To  the  monarch 
alone  was  the  right  of  private  judgment  accorded.      In  the  year 

3  Utopia,  Morris  ed.,  p.  238. 

IS 


1 6  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

1536  the  "Articles  about  Relij^ion"  were   sent  out  by  the  Con- 
vocation, and  published  by  the  king's  authority.      It  reads  : 

Amongst  other  cures  committed  unto  this  our  princely  office,  whereunto 
it  hath  pleased  God  in  his  infinite  mercy  and  goodness  to  call  us,  we  have 
always  esteemed  and  thought  (as  we  also  yet  esteem  and  think)  this  to  be 
most  chief,  most  ponderous,  and  of  most  weight,  that  his  holy  word  and  com- 
mandments may  sincerely  without  lett  or  hindrance,  be  of  our  subjects  truly 
believed,  and  reverently  kept  and  observed  ;  and  that  unity  and  concord  in 
opinions,  namely  in  such  things  as  doth  concern  our  religion,  may  increase 
and  go  forward,  and  all  occasion  of  dissent  and  discord  touching  the  same  be 
repressed,  and  utterly  extinguished.  For  the  which  cause  we  being  of  late, 
to  our  great  regret,  credibly -advertised  of  such  diversity  of  opinions,  as  have 
grown  and  sprongen  in  this  our  realm  ....  have  not  only  in  our  own  per- 
son at  many  times  taken  great  pain,  study,  labour  and  travail,  but  also  have 
caused  our  bishops  and  other  the  most  learned  men  of  our  clergy  in  our 
whole  realm  to  be  assembled  in  convocation  for  the  full  debatement  and  quiet 
determination  of  the  same :  where  after  long  and  mature  deliberation  and 
disputations  had  ....  they  have  finally  agreed  upon  the  said  matters ;  and 
we  have  caused  the  same  to  be  published,  willing,  requiring  and  commanding 
you  to  accept,  repute,  and  take  them  accordingly.* 

In  harmony  with  these  articles  a  rigorous  persecution  was 
kept  up  throughout  this  reign.  Under  Edward  VI.  there  was  a 
relaxation  in  the  execution  of  the  law,  though  no  disposition  to 
repudiate  the  principle.  Cranmer  argued  for  persecution  with 
overwhelming  force,  but  Edward,  in  the  tenderness  of  his  youth, 
signed  the  martyr's  death-warrant  with  tears.s  The  return  to 
Romanism  under  Bloody  Mary  produced  the  most  distressing 
persecution.  So  great  were  the  cruelties  that  Protestantism 
seemed  well-nigh  crushed  out.  As  Elizabeth's  claim  to  the  throne 
was  dependent  on  the  legitimacy  of  Protestantism  in  the  king- 
dom, it  was  brought  into  power  again  to  sustain  her  cause.  She 
also  backed  the  ecclesiastical  courts  with  the  civil  sword,  and 
made  it  impossible  to  say  that  the  victories  of  the  church  were 
bloodless. 

Within  this  period  there  developed  gradually  an  opposition, 
not  only  to  uniformity  as  it  then  existed,  but  even  to  the  idea 
that  any  creed  should   be   forced   upon   the  people.     Frequent 

*  Burnet,  Hist,  of  Ref.,  Pocock  ed.,  pp.  272,  273. 

5  This  is  related  concerning  the  condemnation  of  Joan  of  Kent.  (Burnet, 
Hist.  Ref.,Vo\.U,  p.  112.) 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  I  J 

references  are  made  to  the  rise  of  this  new  thought.  It  was 
decried  as  anarchy.  Its  advocates  were  considered  as  especially 
dangerous.  They  were  greatly  maligned,  and  doubtless  were 
more  or  less  misunderstood.  Our  reports,  coming  as  they  do 
from  their  opponents,  cannot  be  expected  to  be  favorable  to 
them,  or  even  to  be  impartially  truthful. 

Concerning  the  year  1540  we  are  told  that 
notwithstanding  the  care  of  the  king  [Henry  VIII.]  about  religion,  and  the 
security  of  some  of  his  acts  against  some  supposed  errors  ;  yet  divers  greater 
and  real  errors  crept  in  about  these  days  into  the  realm  :  but  the  king  being 
resolved  to  leave  such  as  held  them  unto  his  laws,  excluded  them  his  general 
pardon  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Parliament  in  July,  this  year.  The  errors 
were  these  ;  That  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized  ;  and  if  they  were  baptized 
the}'  ought  to  he  rebaptized  when  they  come  to  lawful  age.  That  it  is  not 
lawful  for  a  Christian  man  to  bear  office  or  rule  in  the  commonwealth.  That 
no  man's  laws  ought  to  be  obeyed.  That  it  is  not  lawful  for  a  Christian  man 
to  take  any  oath  before  a  Judge,  &c.* 

From  the  statement  of  these  "errors"  it  appears  that  theerrorists 
were  what  were  then  called  Anabaptists,  and  that  they  held  that 
religious  laws  were  not  to  be  made  by  men  nor  obeyed  when 
imposed  on  human  authority.  No  reference  is  here  made  to 
civil  authority  or  the  civil  functions  of  the  magistrate.  It  is 
merely  the  assertion  of  the  individual  Christian's  right  to  inter- 
pret the  Scriptures  for  himself. 

Archbishop  Sandys,  who  sustained  the  ecclesiastical  func- 
tions of  the  magistrate  with  great  diligence,  was  at  his  prime  at 
the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century.  His  opposition  to  all  dis- 
sent was  virulent.  In  one  of  his  numerous  sermons  intended  to 
strengthen  the  king's  ecclesiastical  power  he  burst  out  exclaim- 
ing : 

Barbarous  therefore,  and  wicked  is  the  opinion  of  the  anabaptists,  which 
condemn  all  superiority,  authority,  and  government  in  the  church.^ 

The  archbishop  seriously  charges  this  sect  with  holding  the 
equality  and  responsibility  of  the  people  in  their  relation  to 
divine  law.  Such  views  could  not  exist  except  with  those  who 
concede  the  Christian's  right  of  private  judgment. 

*JOHN  Strype,  EccL  Memorials,  Vol.  I,  pp.  552  f. 
'  Sandys'  Sermons,  Parker  Society. 


1 8  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

At  about  this  time  (1550)  Roger  Hutchinson  preached  two 
sermons  on  "Oppression,  Affliction  and  Patience."^  In  the 
second  of  these  he  shows  that  he  has  been  impressed  by  the 
Anabaptists'  demand  for  liberty  of  thought  in  religious  matters, 
and  their  view  of  the  significance  of  Christ's  refusal  to  accept 
civil  office  : 

Aye  [saith  the  master  Anabaptist],  when  the  people  would  have  made 
him  (Christ)  a  king,  he  conveyed  himself  out  of  sight,  and  would  not  take  on 
him  any  such  office.  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  would  not  have  refused  these 
offices  and  functions  if  with  the  profession  of  a  Christian  man  it  were  agree- 
able with  the  temporal  sword  to  punish  offenders,  to  sustain  any  public  room 
and  to  determine  controversies  and  suits  ;  if  it  were  lawful  for  private  men 
to  prosecute  such  suits  and  to  sue  just  and  rightful  titles.  He  noti  est  dotni- 
natus,  sed  passus ;  would  be  no  magistrate,  no  judge,  no  governor,  but  suf- 
fered and  sustained  trouble,  injury,  wrong  and  oppression  patiently. 
In  Hutchinson's  answer  to  this  view  he  stated  with  clearness 
their  teaching  concerning  persecution  : 

Instead  of  the  temporal  sword  which  you  say  Christ's  coming  hath  put 
down,  you  teach  that  now  excommunication  is  to  be  exercised  upon  offenders, 
so  that  they  who  in  the  Old  Testament  were  punished  with  death,  are  only 
to  be  excommunicated. 

Whatever  else  may  be  said  of  this  arraignment  of  the  Anabap- 
tists, it  is  certain  that  the  author  found  no  place  for  coercion  in 
their  system  of  thought.  He  represents  them  as  laying  stress 
upon  Christ's  example  in  his  refusal  to  unite  his  religious  charac- 
ter and  purpose  with  civil  office.  It  is  noteworthy  that  he  does 
not  charge  them  with  denying  the  civil  function  of  the  magistrate. 

"  A  Short  Treatise  of  Politike  power  and  of  the  true  obedi- 
ence which  Subjects  owe  to  Kings  and  other  civil  Governours  " 
was  printed  in  1556,  and  is  ascribed  to  one  John  Poinet.    He  says  : 

Some  there  be  that  will  have  too  little  obedience,  as  the  Anabaptists.  For 
they,  because  they  heare  of  a  christian  liberty,  would  have  all  politike  power 
taken  away;  and  so  indeed  no  obedience For  the  Anabaptists  mis- 
take christian  liberty,  thinking  that  men  may  live  without  sin  ...  .  and 
that  there  fore  God  ordained  civill  power  (his  minister)  to  rule  him  and  to 
call  him  back  whensoever  he  should  pass  the  limits  of  his  duty,  and  would 
that  an  obedience  should  be  given  him.^ 

*  Works  of  Roger  Hutchinson,  Parker  Society,  p.  323. 

9  Commonwealth  Tracts,  p.  22.     Newberry  Lib. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  1 9 

Here  this  sect  is  represented  as  being  peculiar  in  their  thought 
in  that  they  make  too  much  of  Christian  liberty  and  too  little  of 
obedience.  They  are  said  to  make  a  distinction  between  the 
obedience  due  the  civil  authority  and  that  due  directly  to  God. 
The  magistrate,  as  a  minister  of  God,  is  to  rule  man,  restraining 
him  "  whensoever  he  should  pass  the  limits  of  his  duty."  There 
is  no  mention  as  to  what  realm  it  is  from  which  "  all  politike 
power  "  is  to  be  taken,  but  since  the  civil  ruler  is  admitted  to  be 
a  minister  of  God  and  to  have  a  sphere,  it  is  clear  that  it  is 
obedience  in  ecclesiastical  matters  that  is  refused  to  the  king. 

But  that  the  incompleteness  and  vagueness  of  these  state- 
ments arise  from  the  lack  of  knowledge  in  the  authors  quoted, 
rather  than  in  the  minds  of  the  Anabaptists,  is  made  plain  by 
the  fuller  presentation  of  their  views  by  John  Knox,  the  Scottish 
reformer.  He  has  preserved  for  us  an  important  document  of 
the  Anabaptists  in  a  treatise  entitled  "  An  Answer  to  a  Great 
Nomber  of  blasphemous  Cavillations  written  by  an  Anabaptist' 
("Works,"  Vol.  V) .  He  was  candid  enough  to  print  these  cavilla- 
tions in  his  refutation  of  them.  Considered  an  adept  in  hand- 
ling this  heresy,  he  doubtless  was  well  acquainted  with  its 
advocates.  The  Duke  of  Northumberland  wrote  to  Cecil  in 
October,  1552,  requesting  that  the  king  appoint  Mr.  Knox  to  the 
bishopric  of  Rochester,  since  "he  would  be  a  whetstone  to  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  a  confounder  of  the  Anabaptists 
lately  sprung  up  in  Kent."  That  Knox  is  made  use  of  by  the 
duke  is  seen  by  a  letter  written  in  December  of  the  same  year, 
"  with  which  he  returns  Master  Knox  ....  because  he  loves  not 
to  have  to  do  with  men  neither  grateful  nor  pleasable." '°  From 
this  it  may  be  readily  inferred  that  Knox  was  acquainted  with 
the  teachings  of  this  class  of  thinkers  some  years  previous  to 
the  publication  of  his  answer  to  the  "  Cavillations."  It  is 
believed  that  this  answer  came  out  first  in  1560,  though  it  was 
republished  at  several  later  dates.  In  it  the  cavillator,  arguing 
against  the  Calvinists,  attacks  their  morals.  He  accuses  the 
Genevan  reformers  of  "  indured  malice"  for  having  set  forth 
books  af^rming  that  it  was  lawful  to  persecute  and  put  to  death 

'°  Cal.  State  Papers,  Domestic  Series,  1552,  pp.  46-8. 


20  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

such  as  dissent  from  them  in  controversies  of  religion.  He 
af^rms  that 

afore  they  came  to  authoritie  they  were  of  another  judgment,  and  did  both  say 
and  write  that  no  man  ought  to  be  persecuted  for  his  conscience  saik ;  but 
now  they  are  not  only  become  persecutors,  but  they  also  have  given  as  far  as 
lieth  in  them  the  sword  into  the  hands  of  bloodie  tyrantes.  Be  these  I  pray 
you  the  shepe  whom  Christ  sent  forth  in  the  midst  of  wolves  ?  can  the  shepe 
persecute  the  wolf  ?  doth  Abel  kill  Cain  ?  doth  David  (thoh  he  might)  kill 
Saul  ?  Shortly,  doeth  he  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  kill  him  which  was  born 
after  the  fleshe  ?     (Pp.  207  f.) 

Knox,  not  regarding  a  work  on  predestination  the  proper 
place  to  interject  a  discussion  on  this  topic,  replies  : 

Your  Master  Belius  affirmeth  that  lawful  it  is  not  to  the  civil  magistrat 
to  use  the  sworde  against  heretikes.  To  whom  that  godlie  learned  man, 
Theodorus  Beza,  hath  answered.  In  which  if  you  or  your  Master  thinke  not 
yourselves  fully  answered ;  you  may  put  pen  to  the  paper  when  you  list  look- 
ing to  receave  answer  with  convenient  expedicion.  (Pp.  228  f.) 
Yet  the  temptation  is  too  strong  to  be  resisted,  and  the  reformer 
plunges  into  the  argument : 

Where  ye  aske.  If  these  be  the  shepe  which  Christ  sent  furth  in  the  mid- 
des  of  wolves,  and  if  the  shepe  can  persecute  the  wolves  ?  And  I  demand  for 
answer,  Whether  Moses  was  a  shepe  or  wolf,  and  whether  that  fearful 
slaughter  executed  upon  idolaters,  without  respect  of  persons,  was  not  as 
great  a  persecution  as  the  burning  of  Servetus  and  Joan  of  Kent  ?  To  me  it 
appeareth  greater.  For  to  them  was  granted  no  place  of  repentance :  no 
admonition  was  given  unto  them,  but  without  further  delay  or  question,  was 
the  brother  commanded  to  kill  the  brother  ;  yea  the  father  not  to  spare  the 

Sonne When    further   ye   ask.    If   Abel    did    kill  Cayn,    or  David 

Saul,  or  he  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  did  kill  him  which  is  borne  of  the  flesh? 
I  answer.  If  your  question  be  of  Abel,  David  and  Isaak  in  their  proper  per- 
sons, that  none  of  them  did  kill  any  of  these  fore  named.  But  if  thereof  ye 
inferre  more.  Is  it  lawful  for  any  of  God's  Elect  to  kill  any  man  for  his  con- 
science sake  ?  I  answer  that  if  under  the  name  of  conscience  ye  include 
whatsoever  seemeth  good  in  your  owne  eyes,  that  then  ye  afiSrm  a  great 
absurditie  manifestly  repugning"  as  well  to  Gods  law  as  to  the  examples  of 
those  whom  God  hath  highly  praised  in  his  holie  Scriptures.  But  because 
continually  ye  claime  to  your  conscience,  to  remove  from  you  that  vain  cover- 
ture, I  ask,  If  the  Murtherer,  adulterer,  or  any  other  malefactor,  should  be 
exempted  from  punishment  of  the  law,  although  he  alledge  that,  he  oght  to 
be  mocked  that  will  claim  the  patrocinie  "  of  conscience,  when  that  he  doth 

"  Repugnant.  "  Patronage,  support. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  21 

offend  against  God's  will  revealed.  And  why  will  ye  not  grant  as  much  in 
this  matter  which  now  standeth  in  controversie  ?  Because  (say  you)  external 
crimes  hath  no  affinitie  with  matters  of  religion ;  for  the  conscience  of  every 
man  is  not  alike  persuaded  in  the  service  and  honoring  of  God,  neither  yet  in 
such  controversies,  as  God's  worde  hath  not  plainly  decided.  But  I  ask.  If 
that  be  a  just  excuse  why  pernicious  errors  shall  be  obstinately  defended, 
either  yet  that  God's  established  religion  shall  be  contemptously  despised. 
.  .  .  .  We  say,  the  man  is  not  persecuted  for  his  conscience  that,  declin- 
ing from  God,  blaspheming  his  Majestie  and  contemning  his  religion,  obsti- 
nately defendeth  erroneous  and  false  doctrine.  This  man  I  say,  lawfully 
convicted  if  he  suffer  the  death  pronouced  by  a  lawful  Magistrate,  is  not  per- 
secuted (as  in  the  name  of  Servetus  ye  furiously  complein)  but  he  suffereth 
punishment  according  to  God's  commandement  pronounced  in  Deuteronomie, 
the  XIII  chapter. 

In  these  "  Cavillations,"  and  the  reformer's  explanation  of 
them  as  presented  in  this  refutation,  is  found  the  clearest  claim 
for  liberty  of  conscience  that  appears  in  England  at  so  early  a 
date.  It  is  worthy  of  mention  that  these  claims  occur  in  no  plea 
for  toleration.  They  come  as  expressions  of  opinion,  called  out 
in  the  discussion  of  Calvinistic  tenets.  It  is  distinctly  a  reli- 
gious argument.  Persecution  is  said  to  be  foreign  to  Christianity 
because  of  the  character  of  the  Christian.  An  unusual  distinc- 
tion for  that  time  is  drawn  between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
realms.  "  Externall  crimes  hath  no  affinitie  with  matters  of 
religion."  Differences  in  religious  thought  are  held  to  be 
inevitable  and  legitimate.  It  is  held  that  "  God's  worde  "  is  to 
be  the  authority  for  Christians,  and  that  it  is  sufficient  for  thought 
and  conduct,  so  that  where  it  does  not  specify  in  particulars  men 
have  a  right  conscientiously  to  differ  in  opinion  and  practice. 

Knox  justifies  such  action  as  the  execution  of  Servetus  and 
Joan  of  Kent  on  the  ground  that  Moses  was  justified  of  God  in 
the  slaughter  of  idolaters.  He  denies  that  to  execute  an  obsti- 
nate heretic  in  a  legal  manner  is  persecution.  Entirely  oblivious 
of  the  New  Testament  conception  of  voluntary  faith,  he  set  up 
the  thirteenth  chapter  of  Deuteronomy  as  the  valid  Christian 
law  for  heresy. 

In  the  year  1573  John  Whitgift,  who  was  afterward  an  arch- 
bishop, wrote  "  An  Answere  to  a  certen  Libell  intituled,  An 
Admonition  to  the  Parliament."     Although  the  "  Admonition," 


22  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

which  he  opposed,  was  written  by  Cartwright,  Whitgift  at  least 
pretended  to  see  in  it  signs  of  the  Anabaptist  heresy  (B.  M.  697, 
f.  11).  This  publication  was  addressed  as  an  "Exhortation  to 
such  as  bee  in  authoritye  and  have  the  government  of  the  churche 
committed  unto  them  whether  they  be  civile  or  ecclesiastical 
Magistrates."  In  heaping  ignominy  upon  the  followers  of  Cart- 
wright  he  associates  them  with  the  Anabaptists  and  describes 
the  Anabaptists  of  Germany,  concerning  whom  he  claims  to  have 
information,  in  order  that  he  may  show  how  dangerous  the  views 
of  this  sect  were.      Of  them  he  writes: 

They  taught  that  the  civile  magistrate  hath  no  authority  in  Ecclesiasti- 
cal!  matters that   he  ought   not  to   meddle  in  causes  of  religion 

and  fayth.  That  no  man  ought  to  be  compelled  to  faithe,  and  to  religion. 
That  Christians  ought  to  punish  faultes,  not  with  imprisonment,  not  with  the 
sworde,  or  corporall  punishment,  but  only  with  excommunication.  They 
complained  much  of  persecution.     (P.  15.) 

While  these  doctrines  are  ascribed  to  the  German  Anabap- 
tists, they  are  quoted  by  a  most  intelligent  Englishman  for  the 
purpose  of  characterizing  the  party  in  England.  This  makes  it 
safe  to  say  that,  so  far  as  Whitgift  then  knew,  this  statement  of 
the  relation  of  the  magistrate  to  ecclesiastical  affairs  was  a  fair 
statement  of  the  English  Anabaptists'  position. 

Ten  years  after  the  putting  forth  of  this  "Answere  "  (1583), 
and  when  he  was  in  the  midst  of  his  ofificial  ecclesiastical  labors, 
he  preached  a  sermon  in  St.  Paul's,  making  another  reference  to 
the  heterodox  teachings  of  these  people.  This  mention  is  made 
in  the  following  language  : 

The  second  sort  are  the  Anabaptists,  who  will  have  no  government  at  al. 
And  they  ground  their  heresy  upon  the  fifth  to  the  Galatians :  "  Stand  fast  in 
the  liberty  wherewith  Christ  hath  made  you  free."  And  again,  "  You  are 
called  unto  liberty."  ....  This  heresy  of  the  Anabaptists  is  so  evident 
that  it  needs  no  confutation. '3 

This  might  be  regarded  as  a  charge  of  anarchy,  did  we  not 
know  that  the  distinction  now  made  between  civil  and  ecclesiasti- 
cal government  was  seldom  admitted  then,  and  that  Whitgift's 
discussion  was  religious.  In  fact,  under  the  Tudors  denial  of  the 
magistrate's  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  was  as  much  anarchy  as 
the  denial  of  his  political  power. 

'3  Strype,  Annals,  Whitgift,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  77. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  23 

Richard  Hooker,  in  his  "Ecclesiastical  Polity,"  made  his 
arraignment  with  greater  discrimination  : 

It  is  a  loose  and  licentious  opinion  which  the  Anabaptists  have  embraced, 
holding  that  a  christian  man's  liberty  is  lost  and  the  soul  which  Christ  hath 
redeemed  unto  himself  injuriously  drawn  into  servitude  under  the  yoke  of 
human  power  if  any  law  be  now  imposed  besides  the  gospel  of  Christ,  in 
obedience  whereunto  the  Spirit  of  God,  not  the  constraint  of  men,  is  to  lead 
us  according  to  that  saying  of  the  blessed  Apostle,  "  Such  as  are  led  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  are  the  sons  of  God,"  and  not  such  as  live  in  thraldom  unto  men. 
Their  judgment  is  therefore  that  the  Church  of  Christ  should  admit  no  law- 
makers but  the  evangelists,  no  courts  but  presbyteries,  no  punishments  but 
ecclesiastical  censures."* 

This  "  loose  and  licentious  opinion  "  rules  the  political  government 
out  of  the  religious  sphere.  All  force  in  the  church  is  regarded 
as  un-Christian.  The  gospels  are  held  to  be  the  only  religious 
lawbooks  that  are  legitimate.  The  High  Commissions  and  the 
Star  Chambers  were  to  be  simple  presbyteries.  No  more  severe 
penalty  should  be  executed  than  a  church  censure. 

Of  the  preceding  statements  of  the  Anabaptists'  teachings 
all  save  one  come  from  hostile  sources,  and  that  one,  John  Knox' 
quotation  of  the  "  Cavillations,"  comes  through  a  hostile  source, 
though  doubtless  without  change.  It  is  reasonable  now  to  assert 
that  these  representations  are  no  more  favorable  to  the  advocates 
than  the  truth  obliged  their  opponents  to  make  them.  Indeed, 
to  these  writers  the  doctrines  they  have  thus  set  forth  are  entirely 
undesirable,  and  each  expression  of  them  is  accompanied  with  a 
condemnation  of  the  heresy  or  the  heretics.  They  have  exposed  to 
view  what  they  regarded  as  the  darkest  side. 

The  truth  concerning  a  defendant's  action  may  be  arrived  at 
best  if  an  adversary  is  allowed  to  add  his  version  of  the  case; 
but  to  learn  most  accurately  concerning  one's  doctrines  the 
plaintiff  alone  may  be  trusted  to  present  the  matter  exactly. 
When,  however,  the  opponents  have  so  carefully  disposed  of  the 
documents  as  in  the  case  of  the  early  Anabaptists, 's  the  historian 
»4Keble  ed.,  revised,  Vol.  Ill,  Book  VII,  App.  No.  i. 

'5  King  Henry  VIII. 's  proclamation  to  bring  in  seditious  books  (Wilkin's  Consilia, 
III,  p.  776) :  "  The  King's  most  royal  majestie  being  informed  that  sundry  contentious 
and  sinistre  opinions  have  by  wrong  teachings  and  naughty  printed  books  increased 
and  grown  within  this  his  realm  of  England,  .  .  .  .  and  by  such  like  books  as  have  been 


24  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

labors  under  multiplied  difficulties.  He  even  resorts  to  the  evi- 
dent misrepresentations  of  the  enemy  to  find  the  nearest  approach 
to  a  correct  representation. 

There  is  at  hand  another  statement  than  that  of  the  "  Cavilla- 
tions,"  and  from  a  friendly  source.  The  earliest  advocates  hailed 
from  the  continent.  Many  were  fleeing  from  persecutions  in 
France  and  the  Netherlands.  Queen  Elizabeth  received  them, 
very  much  to  the  displeasure  of  the  pope.  Bishop  Jewel  defended 
the  action  of  the  queen,  comparing  the  persecuted  immigrants 
very  favorably  with  the  Spaniards  who  had  immigrated  in  Mary's 
reign.     "But,"  says  Strype,  "with  these  came  over  anabaptists 

also  and  sectaries  holding  heretical  and  ill  opinions And 

indeed  several  opinions  and  doctrines  sprung  from  some  of  these 
foreigners,  begin  now,  if  not  before,  to  be  dispersed  in  the  nation, 
dangerous  to  the  established  and  orthodox  religion  and  the  civil 
government."'^  It  is  true  that  these  were  not  the  first  arrivals 
of  this  sort,  since  they  are  mentioned  as  early  as  in  the  reign  of 
Henry  VHI.  Among  these  immigrants  were  two  who  came  from 
Flanders,  and  were  apprehended  with  others,  and  taken  before 
the  magistrate  and  condemned  to  death.  The  large-hearted 
martyriologist  Fox  pleaded  with  the  queen  for  their  lives,  but 
they  were  executed  in  1575.  They  feared  that  their  teachings 
would  be  misunderstood,  and  hence,  in  addition  to  their  other 
communications,  they  wrote  a  confession  of  faith,  while  in  the 
Marshalsea  prison.     The  tenth  article  is  as  follows  : 

printed  within  this  his  realme,  ....  as  by  sundr}'  strange  persons  called  Anabaptists 
and  Sacramentaries,  which  be  lately  come  into  this  realme,  ....  the  king's  most 
royal  majestic  declareth  and  notifyeth  to  all  his  loving  subjects  that  his  highness  like 
a  godly  and  catholick  prince  abhorreth  and  detesteth  the  same  sects  and  their 
abominable  errors  and  opinions  ;  and  intendeth  to  proceed  against  such  of  them  as  be 
already  apprehended  according  to  the  merits  of  the  laws  of  his  realme." 
Under  Elizabeth  the  Star  Chamber  decreed 

1.  "  That  no  person  shall  print  or  publish  any  book  against  the  queen's  injunctions, 
ordinances,  or  letters  patent,  set  forth  or  to  be  set  forth,  or  against  the  meaning  of  them. 

2.  "  That  such  offenders  should  forfeit  all  their  books  and  copies,  and  suffer  three 
months'  imprisonment,  and  never  practise  the  art  of  printing  any  more. 

3.  "  That  all  forfeited  books  should  be  brought  to  Stationers-hall,  and  half  the 
money  forfeited  to  be  reserved  for  the  queen,  the  rest  for  the  informer,  and  the  books 
to  be  destroyed  or  made  waste-paper."  (Neal,  Vol.  I,  pp.  151  f.;  refer  Life  of 
Parker,  p.  221.) 

''Strype,  Annals,  Vol.  V,  pp.  269  f. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  25 

We  believe  and  confess  that  magistrates  are  set  and  ordained  of  God, 
Wisd.  vi.  4,  Sirach  xvii.  18,  Romans  xiii.  i,  to  punish  evil  and  protect  the 
good :  which  magistracy  we  from  our  hearts  desire  to  obey,  as  it  is  written  in 
the  first  of  Peter  ii.  13,  Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of  man  for  the 
Lord's  sake.  For  he  beareth  not  the  sword  in  vain,  Rom.  xiii.  4.  And  Paul 
teaches  us  that  we  should  offer  up  for  all  prayers  intercessions  and  giving  of 
thanks  for  all  kings  and  magistrates  ;  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable 
life  in  all  godliness  and  honesty.  For  this  is  good  and  acceptable  in  the  sight 
of  God  our  Saviour,  who  desires  that  all  men  should  be  saved,  i  Tim  ii.  i, 
2,  3,  4.     He  further  teaches  us  to  be  subject  to  principalities  and  powers,  to 

obey  magistrates,  and  to  be   ready  to  every  good  work.    Peter  iii.  i 

We  likewise  do  no  approve  of  those  who  resist  the  magistrates  ;  but  confess 
and  declare  with  our  whole  heart  that  we  must  be  obedient  and  subject  unto 
them,  as  we  have  here  set  down.'^ 

This  confession  was  subscribed  to  by  Jan  Pieters  and  Hendrik 
Terwoort.  Its  aim  probably  was  to  correct  the  false  opinion 
prevalent  concerning  their  teachings  about  magistracy.  Here 
the  stress  is  laid  on  the  acceptance  of  the  civil  functions  of  the 
rulers,  no  mention  being  made  of  their  denial  of  the  magistrate's 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction.  The  absence  of  the  latter  may  be 
accounted  for  by  the  condition  which  is  the  probable  cause  of 
the  presence  of  the  former.  Strype  shows  that  they  were 
regarded  as  enemies  of  the  government.  In  rebuttal  of  this 
charge,  which  was  leading  them  so  surely  to  the  stake,  they 
strongly  assert  their  subjection  to  the  state  in  civil  matters.  In 
their  dire  distress  they  wish  to  avoid  counteracting  this  impres- 
sion by  a  denial  of  the  state's  right  to  rule  in  religion.  Omission 
of  the  most  objectionable  part  of  their  view  was  thus  expected  to 
produce  the  best  result.  But  they  were  not  sufficiently  recreant 
to  their  trust  to  leave  wholly  unexpressed  even  this  most  objec- 
tionable heresy.  Terwoort  wrote  a  letter  in  which  he  presented 
a  supplementary  statement  on  the  subject : 

Observe  well  the  command  of  God  ;  Thou  shalt  love  the  stranger  as  thy- 
self. Should  he  who  is  in  misery,  and  dwelling  in  a  strange  land,  be  driven 
thence  with  his  companions,  to  their  great  damage  ?  Of  this  Christ  speaks, 
Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you  do  ye  even  so  to  them  ;  for 
this  is  the  law  and  the  prophets.  Oh !  that  they  would  deal  with  us  accord- 
ing to  natural  reasonableness,  and  evangelic  truth,  of  which  our  persecutors 
so  highly  boast.     For  Christ  and  his  disciples  persecuted  no  one  ;  but  on  the 

^T  Het  Bloedig  Toonel,  pp.  704-6,  trans,  in  Broadmead Records,  Addenda,  pp.  507  f. 


26  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

contrary  Jesus  hath  thus  taught,  Love  your  enemies,  bless  them  that  curse 
you,  etc.  This  doctrine  Christ  left  behind  with  his  apostles,  as  they  testify. 
Thus  Paul,  Unto  this  present  hour  we  both  hunger,  and  thirst,  and  are  naked, 
and  are  buffeted,  and  have  no  certain  dwelling  place  ;  and  labor  working 
with  our  own  hands  ;  being  reviled  we  bless  ;  being  persecuted  we  suffer  it. 
From  all  this  it  is  clear  that  those  who  have  the  true  gospel  doctrine  and 
faith  will  persecute  no  one,  but  will  themselves  be  persecuted.'® 

In  this  we  have  a  simple  scriptural  claim  for  freedom  from 
compulsion,  arising  out  of  their  distressed  condition.  There  is 
an  arraignment  of  the  persecution  as  being  anti-Christian,  and 
persecutors  are  boldly  declared  to  be  without  the  true  gospel 
doctrine  and  faith.  The  admission  of  the  magistrate's  authority 
and  the  support  due  from  the  Christian  subject  are  also  enforced 
by  Scripture  quotation.  No  theory  of  government  is  elaborated, 
nor  the  least  tendency  to  philosophical  consideration  observable. 

Thus  we  identify  England's  earliest  seekers  after  liberty  of 
conscience.  The  sources  of  our  information  are  few  and  imper- 
fect. They  do  not  justify  us  in  asserting  that  the  Anabaptists 
had  their  doctrines  fully  worked  out  in  the  times  of  the  Tudors. 
Their  views  seem  to  have  been  passing  through  processes  of 
formulation.  On  the  other  hand,  many  witnesses  show  that 
the  heresy  was  beyond  its  incipient  stages.  A  full  liberty  of 
religious  thought  was  demanded.  A  purely  scriptural  argu- 
ment was  used.  They  inclined  toward  the  use  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment rather  than  the  Old. '9 

^^  Het  Bloedig  Toonel,  Deel  II,  pp.  694-712. 

'9  Glimpses  are  afforded  us  of  the  position  upon  this  subject  of  the  early  Anabap- 
tists on  the  continent.  I  will  call  attention  to  two  statements  only.  Hubmeyer,  a 
leader  of  the  Anabaptists  of  Switzerland  and  Germany  in  the  early  Reformation 
period,  wrote  a  pamphlet  "Concerning  Heretics  and  those  that  burn  them."  In  this 
he  says  :  "  The  tares  must  grow  together  with  the  wheat.  But  the  greatest  heretics 
are  the  inquisitors  themselves,  for  Christ  did  not  come  to  butcher  and  to  burn,  but  to 
preserve  and  improve.  We  must  therefore  pray  for  improvement,  and  hope  for  it  as 
long  as  a  man  lives.  A  Turk  or  a  heretic  is  not  to  be  overcome  by  fire  or  sword,  but 
by  patience  and  instruction.  The  burning  of  heretics  is  an  apparent  confession  but 
an  actual  denial  of  Christ."  (W.  W.  Evarts,  "  Balthazer  Hubmeyer,"  Am.  Bapt. 
Review,  1 88 1,  No.  lo.) 

Guy  De  Bres,  writing  in  1565,  said  that  the  Anabaptists  differed  in  their  views  on 
the  magistrate,  some  holding  that  he  had  no  place  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  while  others 
bounded  his  sphere.  (La  Racine,  Source  et  foundement  des  Anabaptistes,  B.  M. 
4135  aa.) 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  27 

There  was  arising  at  this  time  another  class  of  thinkers  that 
was  frequently  confounded  with  the  Anabaptists.  In  fact,  the 
agreement  of  these  two  sects  in  their  acceptance  of  the  idea  of 
church  independence  and  their  early  association  argue  their  rise 
from  a  common  stock.  We  are  interested  to  learn  whether  they 
were  in  agreement  on  our  subject  or  not.  One  of  the  leaders  of 
this  second  class  of  dissenters  was  Robert  Browne.  In  the  year 
1582  he  published  a  pamphlet  which  bears  the  title,  "A  Booke 
which  sheweth  the  life  and  manners  of  all  true  Christians  &c. 
Also  there  goeth  a  Treatise  before  of  Reformation  without  tarry- 
ing for  anie,  and  of  the  wickedness  of  those  Preachers,  which 
will  not  reform  themselves  and  their  charge,  because  they  will 
tarry  till  the  Magistrate  commaunde  and  compell  them."  (B.  M., 
c.  37,  e.  57.)  It  is  the  "Treatise  before  of  Reformation,  etc.," 
which  is  considered  as  expressing  Browne's  view  of  liberty  of 
conscience.  The  title  of  this  "  Treatise  "  is  sufficiently  clear  as 
to  the  nature  of  the  subject  handled,  nor  need  one  be  confused 
by  a  perusal  of  the  pamphlet.  Beyond  this  a  study  of  other 
pamphlets  of  this  period  shows  conclusively  the  nature  of  the 
controversy  that  was  on.  The  ministers  of  the  established 
church  were  being  pressed  by  the  thinkers  of  Puritanical  tend- 
encies to  begin  a  radical  reform  of  the  state  church.  The  min- 
isters admitted  the  need  of  reform,  but  pleaded  their  lack  of 
authority  to  take  any  steps  until  the  queen  had  taken  the  initia- 
tive. Browne  writes  this  treatise  opposing  these  "  Wicked 
preachers,"  "  blinde  guides,"  in  their  waiting  idly  until  the 
"  Magistrate  do  force  them."  The  necessity  for  this  compulsion 
of  the  magistrate  Browne  greatly  deprecates.  "  We  holde  all 
those  Preachers  and  teachers  accursed  which  will  not  do  the 
duties  of  pastors  and  teachers  till  the  Magistrates  do  force  them 
thereto"  (p.  i).  He  does  not  deprecate  the  use  of  force  by  the 
magistrate.      In  the  very  introduction  he  writes  : 

Agayne  we  say  that  her  [Queen  Elizabeth's]  authoritie  is  civil,  and  that 
power  she  hath  as  highest  under  God  within  her  Dominions,  and  that  over 
all  persons  and  causes.  By  that  she  may  put  to  death  all  that  deserve  it  by 
Lawe  either  of  the  Church  or  commonwealth,  and  none  may  revyle  Her,  or 
the  magistrates  under  her,  by  force  or  wicked  speeches  when  they  execute  the 
lawes.  Seeing  we  graunt  and  hold  thus  much,  howe  doe  they  charge  us  as 
evil  willers  to  the  Queene  ? 


28  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

This  statement  is  plainly  apologetic.  Browne  and  his  fol- 
lowers had  been  charged  with  opposition  to  the  government. 
He  sees  no  reason  for  this  charge,  since  he  admits  all  that  the 
queen  asks.  He  concedes  that  she  may  execute  the  laws  of  the 
church  as  well  as  of  the  commonwealth.  There  are  no  persons 
or  causes  beyond  the  reach  of  her  power.  The  heretic  or  non- 
conformist, being  condemned  to  death  by  the  laws  of  the  church, 
may  be  delivered  to  the  executioner  by  the  state.  Though 
there  be  the  most  rigid  law  of  conformity,  the  queen  may  exe- 
cute it,  and  woe  be  to  the  man  who  reviles  her  or  complains  of 
her  severity. 

To  the  same  effect  he  writes  on  p.  12  : 

We  know  that  Moses  might  reforme,  and  the  Judges  and  Kings  which 
followed  him,  and  so  may  our  Magistrates  ;  yea  they  may  reforme  the  Church 
and  commaunde  things  expedient  for  the  same.  Yet  they  may  do  nothing 
concerning  the  church,  but  onelie  civilie,  and  as  civile  Magistrates  i.  e.  they 
have  not  that  authoritie  over  the  Church  as  to  be  Prophetes,  or  Priestes  or 
spiritual  Kings,  as  they  are  magistrates  over  the  same ;  but  onelie  to  rule  the 
commonwealth  in  all  outwarde  justice,  to  maintain  the  right,  welfare  and 
honor  thereof,  with  outwarde  power,  bodily  punishment  and  civill  forcing 
of  me. 

The  theory  that  the  examples  of  religious  compulsion  accredited 
to  the  Old  Testament  worthies  justifies  persecution  in  the  Chris- 
tian state  was  held  by  Browne.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  state 
explicitly  that,  as  Moses  and  the  Judges  and  the  Kings  had  a 
right  to  foist  a  religious  reform  movement  on  the  people,  so 
might  the  English  rulers  do  the  same.  Yet  Browne  presses 
one  distinction.  The  magistrate  must  not  be  the  religious 
teacher  or  spiritual  leader.  In  that  sense  he  cannot  be  a  Moses, 
nor  a  Joshua,  nor  a  Josiah.  He  was  to  be  a  "civile"  officer  in 
the  sense  of  being  an  executive  officer.  The  church  should  fur- 
nish its  own  spiritual  guides,  and  they  should  have  authority  in 
its  instruction  and  legislation.  The  magistrate  then  stepped  in 
to  execute  the  laws.  He  was  "to  maintain  the  right,  welfare 
and  honor"  of  the  church,  "with  outwarde  power,  bodily  punish- 
ment and  civill  forcing  of  me."  The  ordinary  division  of 
governments  as  seen  in  the  progress  of  this  contest  is  into  eccle- 
siastical  and   civil.     The   ecclesiastical   includes  all  affairs  that 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  29 

pertain  to  religious  thought  and  conduct,  whether  of  the  church 
or  the  individual.  Its  realm  is  coextensive  with  that  of  religion. 
All  else  is  civil.  Browne  has  made  a  classification  of  his  own. 
He  recognizes  the  spiritual  and  the  civil.  With  him  the  civil 
has  invaded  the  ecclesiastical  realm,  that  is,  the  execution  of 
ecclesiastical  laws  he  regards  a  civil  function.  Another  distinc- 
tion Browne  makes.  It  is  between  the  propagation  of  the  Chris- 
tian religion  and  the  maintenance  of  it.  The  government  must 
not  propagate  religion,  but  must  maintain  it  when  once  accepted. 
He  teaches  that  the  government  of  a  Christian  nation  is  to  look 
to  the  interests  of  the  church,  since  that  is  its  charge.  The  gos- 
pel, however,  must  not  be  preached  with  the  sword.  Christianity 
must  gain  its  ascendency  over  a  people  before  the  government 
is  charged  to  look  to  its  interests. 

And  therefore  also  because  the  church  is  in  a  commonwealth,  it  is  of 
their  charge ;  that  is  concerning  the  outward  provision  and  outward  justice, 
they  are  to  look  to  it ;  but  to  compell  religion,  to  plant  churches  by  power 
and  to  force  submission  to  Ecclesiastical  government  by  lawes  and  penalties, 
belongeth  not  to  them  as  is  proved  before,  neither  yet  to  the  church. 
From  a  comparison  of  this  sentence  with  the  preceding  quota- 
tions it  appears  that  this  is  either  a  direct  contradiction  of  the 
view  before  expressed,  or  he  here  refers  to  the  reception  of 
Christianity  into  a  community.  If  the  former  be  true,  his  entire 
expression  of  opinion  on  this  subject  is  worthless.  That  the 
latter  is  more  likely  to  be  his  thought  is  suggested  by  his  use  of 
the  phrase  "to  plant  churches  by  power,"  and  by  the  fact  that 
he  has  not  even  attempted  to  prove  that  compulsion  had  no 
place  in  religion.  On  the  other  hand,  he  says  distinctly:  "  Goe 
to  therefore,  and  the  outwarde  power  and  civile  forcings  let  us 
leave  to  the  Magistrates."^" 

^"Concerning  the  objects  of  the  magistrate's  power,  the  distinctions  of  "outward" 
and  "  inward "  are  somewhat  obscure.  The  significance  attached  to  them  by  the 
Independents,  and  consequently  the  Brownists,  is  commented  upon  in  an  important 
document  of  the  Congregationalists  known  as  the  "  Platform  of  Church  Discipline, 
agreed  upon  by  the  Elders  and  Messengers  of  the  Churches  assembled  in  the  Synod 
of  Cambridge,  in  New  England,  1649  "  (Mather's  Magnolia,  II,  211  f.).  In  it  the  fol- 
lowing occurs :  "  The  objects  of  the  power  of  the  magistrate  are  not  things  meerly 
inward,  and  so  not  subject  to  his  cognizance  and  views  :  as  unbelief,  hardness  of 
heart,  erroneous  opinions  not  vented,  but  only  such  things  as  are  acted  by  the  outward 


30  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Browne's  opposition  is  directed  entirely  against  "  those 
Preachers  that  will  not  reform  themselves  nor  their  charges, 
because  they  will  tarie  till  the  Magistrate  commaunde  and  com- 
pell  them,"  not  against  magistrates  for  forcing  the  conscience. 
It  is  rather  against  the  preachers  for  not  forcing  the  morals  of 
the  people.  "  Goe  to  therefore,  3^e  tolerating  Preachers,  this  you 
get  by  your  tolerating,  to  have  no  name  among  the  righteous 
nor  to  be  of  the  bodie  of  the  church"  (p.  17).  He  objects  to 
these  ministers  obtaining  civil  authority,  but  in  no  sense  holds 
that  the  magistrates  should  drop  any  one  of  their  acquired  func- 
tions. He  holds  that  the  magistrate  has  not  the  spiritual  func- 
tion of  the  prophet  or  priest,  but  he  also  holds  that  the  magistrate 
has  authority  over  the  church,  and  over  the  lives  of  his  subjects 
to  force  upon  them  religious  action.  He  mentions  imprison- 
ment for  heretical  teaching,  and  the  use  of  force  by  the  magis- 
trate in  cases  of  conscience,  but  does  not  take  the  space  to 
condemn  either. 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  a  late  and  very  profound  historian, 
Henry  Martyn  Dexter,  ascribes  to  Robert  Browne  "the  proud 
pre-eminence  of  having  been  the  first  writer  clearly  to  state  and 
defend  in  the  English  tongue  the  true  —  and  now  accepted  — 
doctrine  of  the  relation  of  the  magistrate  to  the  church.""  For 
proof  he  refers  to  the  pamphlet  just  considered.  It  is  true  that 
Browne  regarded  the  magistrate  as  under  the  spiritual  guidance 
of  the  prophet  or  preacher,  and  held  that  the  gospel  should  be 
accepted  through  proclamation,  not  through  compulsion  ;  as  also 
that  the  church  should  reach  its  own  decisions  in  its  affairs.   But 

man  :  neither  their  power  to  be  exercised  in  commanding  such  acts  of  the  outward 
man,  and  punishing  the  neglect  thereof,  as  are  but  meer  inventions  and  devices  of 
men  (l  Kings  xx.  28,  42)  but  such  acts  as  are  commanded  and  forbidden  in  the  word  ; 
yea  such  as  the  word  doth  clearly  determine,  tho'  not  always  clearly  to  the  judgment 
of  the  magistrate  or  others,  yet  clearly  in  itself.  In  these  he  of  right,  ought  to  put 
forth  his  authority,  though  oft-times  actually  he  doth  it  not.  Idolatry,  blasphemy, 
heresie  (Deut.  xiii ;  i  Kings  xx.  28,  42),  venting  corrupt  and  pernicious  opinions,  that 
destroy  the  foundation  (Dan.  iii.  29),  open  contempt  of  the  word  preached  (Zech.  xiii. 
3)  profanation  of  the  Lord's  Day,  (Neh.  xiii.  31)  disturbing  the  peaceable  administra- 
tion and  exercise  of  the  worship  and  holy  things  of  God  (i  Tim.  ii.  2)  and  the  like, 
are  to  be  restrained  and  punished  by  civil  authority." 

"  Cong,  as  Seen  in  its  Literature,  p.  loi. 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  3  I 

he  taught  that  the  magistrate  should  enforce  these  decisions 
upon  the  people.  Browne  has  not  only  failed  to  "clearly  state 
and  defend  ....  the  true  —  and  now  accepted  —  doctrine  of  the 
relation  of  the  magistrate  to  the  church;"  he  has  not  even  left 
enough  unsaid  to  create  the  impression  that  it  was  possible  for 
him  to  have  held  such  a  doctrine.  The  claim  that  Browne  dif- 
fered from  his  followers  in  this  particular  does  not  seem  plau- 
sible, since  no  mention  of  such  a  difference  occurs,  and  had  it 
existed  it  would  have  been  an  important  matter. 

Robert  Harrison,  Browne's  most  intimate  associate  during 
the  days  of  his  unorthodox  teachings,"  discussed  the  same  sub- 
ject that  aroused  the  opposition  of  Browne,  namely,  "Whither 
the  Prince  or  the  people  ought  first  to  beginne  reformation  in 
the  Church?  "      He  says  : 

In  the  name  of  God  let  Caesar  have  whatsoever  unto  him  belongeth,  even 
all  civile  power  and  Dominion  ordayned  of  God.  And  woe  unto  him,  saye  1, 
whiche  shall  holde  this  and  teach  men  so,  that  there  is  no  use  of  the  Magis- 
trates sworde  among   Christians Therefore    I    am    thus    persuaded 

that  as  the  Kings  of  Juda  did  reforme  by  their  civile  power  those  things 
which  outwardly  were  sett  up  for  abominations ;  namely  as  they  did  break 
down  the  altars,  cut  down  the  groves,  burne  the  images  with  fire,  slaye  the 
priestes  of  Baal,  and  such  like  thinges  ;  so  also  it  appertaineth  to  the  magis- 
trates now  to  break  down  the  idolitrous  altars,  plucke  downe  their  buildinges, 
burn  their  images  with  fire,  and  to  slay  those  who  have  revolted  from  Chris- 
tianity to  idolatrie.^3 

Such  a  virulent  antagonism  to  religious  freedom  would  appear 
strange  in  the  boon-companion  and  chief  assistant  of  a  great 
advocate  of  liberty  of  conscience.  The  fact  that  Harrison  and 
Browne  agreed  upon  the  doctrine  that  the  kings  of  Judah  were 
worthy  exampl,es  to  the  Christian  magistrate  in  this  particular 
makes  probable  their  agreement  in  the  practical  application  of 
this  theory. 

Charges  were  made  against  the  Brownists  relative  to  this 
very  heresy.     Specimens   of   these    charges,    together   with    the 

"Browne  renounced  his  principles  of  separation  in  1589,  and  became  a  rector  of 
a  church  in  Northamptonshire.  This  did  not  cause  the  obliteration  of  the  doctrines 
he  formerly  taught,  however.  The  Brownists  continued  their  propagation.  (Neal, 
History  of  Puritans,  Vol.  I,  p.  246.) 

=3^  Little  Treatise  upon  the  firste  verse  of  the  122  Psalm.  (B.  M.  3090,  a.  15 
(1583).) 


32  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

replies  of  the  Brownists,  will  assist  in  the  discovery  of  their 
real  position.  In  1589  Robert  Some,  a  controversialist  of  note, 
published  his  "Godly  Treatise  wherein  are  examined  &  confuted 
many  execrable  fancies,  given  out  and  holden  partly  by  Henry 
Barrow  and  John  Greenwood  ;  partly  by  other  of  the  Anabap- 
tistical  order"  (B.  M.,  bbb.  17).  In  this  he  presents  "A  Table 
of  Certaine  grosse  and  Anabaptisticall  fancies,  given  out  and 
holden  by  the  Anabaptisticall  recusants": 

1.  That  Oueene  Elizabeth  ought  to  abolish  the  Universities  of  Cambridge 
and  Oxford. 

2.  That  the  Ministers  of  the  Gospell  must  live  ex  mera  eleemosuna, 
that  is,  of  mere  alms. 

3.  The  church  need  not  to  stay  for  the  Prince  in  reforming  of  any  abuse ; 
but  may  reforme  it,  though  the  Prince  say  No. 

4.  That  a  christian  Prince  hath  no  authoritie  to  make  godly  Ecclesias- 
tical lawes  in  his  Dominions. 

In  replying  to  fancy  No.  4,  Some  makes  evident  his  lack  of 
clearness  in  regard  to  the  opponents  of  the  establishment.  He 
asserts  that  "  the  popish  &  Anabaptisticall  sort  doe  allow  unto 
Christian  princes,  potestatem  facti  sed  non  juris,  that  is,  they 
wil  not  allow  christian  princes  to  make  and  publish  godly  eccle- 
siasticall  lawes  :  but  they  are  content  that  christian  princes  shall 
defend  and  put  in  execution  such  ecclesiasticall  lawes  as  are 
made  by  them."  Granting  that  Some  has  been  exact  in  his 
statements  of  the  views  of  Barrow  and  Greenwood  on  these 
points,  his  use  of  the  terms  "popish"  and  "Anabaptisticall" 
causes  one  to  suspect  that  he  puts  all  dissenters  into  one  category, 
and  makes  Barrow  and  Greenwood  sample  specimens  of  the  whole. 

More  definitely,  but  not  more  accurately,  George  Gyffard, 
minister  at  Maldon,  attempted  to  prove  that  the  Brownists  were 
Donatists.  In  so  doing  he  charged  them  with  teaching  that 
Princes  are  not  to  make  Lawes  for  church  matters.  Princes  are  not  to 
reforme  the  church  by  their  authoritie ;  Princes  are  not  to  compel!  their  sub- 
jects to  the  true  worship  of  God  by  penalties  ;  If  Princes  pleasures  are  to  be 
attended  where  is  the  persecution  we  speak  of:  None  of  the  godlie  Kings  of 
Judea  durst  compell  anie  to  the  covenant.  The  people  of  Christ's  kingdom 
are  spontanei,  such  as  come  of  their  own  accord,  etc.''' 

»*^  Plaine  Declaration  that  our  Brownists  be  full  Donatists.  (B.  M.  697,  c. 
27,  p.  64.) 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  33 

How  just  the  charges  of  these  ministers  of  the  establishment 
were  may  be  learned  from  the  further  writings  of  the  Brownists. 
A  pamphlet  appeared  in  1589  which  purports  to  give  the  doc- 
trine of  M.  Penri,  and  also  the  author,  I.  G.,  who  is  thought  to 
be  John  Greenwood.  Its  title  is  "M.  Some  laid  open  in  his 
coulers  wherein  the  indifferent  reader  may  easily  see  howe 
wretchedly  and  loosely  he  hath  handled  the  cause  against  M. 
Penri"  (B.  M.  1848,  a.  10,  p.  17).  Quoting  from  M.  Some,  the 
writer,  I.  G.,  presents  the  following  sentence  in  italics  :  ''A  godly 
Prince  [saith  he)  may  and  ought  to  compell  his  subjects  {if  any  refuse) 
to  the  external  service  of  God."  Taking  this  as  his  subject,  I.  G. 
comments  upon  it : 

This  being  a  matter  so  notably  and  so  thoroughly  handled  alreadie  by  M. 
Fulke  and  M.  Wyborne  against  Howlet  that  almost  there  cannot  anything 
be  added  to  that  which  they  have  sett  downe.  I  muse  that  your  D.  would  be 
at  cost  to  print  us  a  new  Almanacke  of  the  last  yeare ;  I  do  not  know  any 
that  professe  the  holy  religion  of  God  in  soundnesse  and  sinceritie  that  will 
deny  this.  And  therefore  I  dare  say  for  M.  Penri,  that  he  wil  willingly  with 
hart  and  hande  subscribe  to  it,  yea  and  I  thinke  he  will  if  need  be  adde  one 
clause  more  to  it  for  the  farther  strengthening  and  confirmation  of  the 
prince's  authoritie,  vz.  that  the  same  Prince  that  hath  power  de  jure  to  do 
this,  ought  also  to  compel  every  preaching  minister  to  be  ordinarily  resident 
on  his  charge ;  And  if  it  were  put  in  execution  I  thinke  that  M.  Some  and 
some  others  should  not  be  suffered  to  rove  and  range  up  and  downe  as  they 
doe,  neglecting  their  charges  and  breathing  after  chaplainship,  promotions 
and  I  knowe  not  what. 

This  counter-charge  against  M.  Some  probably  induced  his 
attack  on  Barrow  and  Greenwood  in  the  "Godly  Treatise." 
Some's  arraignment  of  M.  Penri  was  probably  the  first  of  these 
documents  to  come  out.  I.  G.  then  answered  Some,  denying  that 
Penri  was  a  heretic  on  the  doctrine  of  the  magistrate.  This 
occurred  in  the  year  1 589.  Before  this  year  was  past  the  "  Godly 
Treatise  "  appeared.  In  this  Barrow  and  Greenwood  are  not  rep- 
resented as  advocating  the  radical  views  on  the  doctrine  of  the 
magistrate  that  were  attributed  to  Penri.  Browne's  position  rather 
was  ascribed  to  them,  to  the  effect  that  the  minister  had  authority 
in  beginning  a  reform  movement  without  waiting  for  the  magis- 
trate to  act ;  and,  further,  that,  while  the  prince  might  make  no 
ecclesiastical  laws,  he  should  execute  those  made  by  the  church. 


34  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

In  the  year  1592  many  of  the  Brownists  were  imprisoned. 
Among  this  number  were  Barrow,  Greenwood,  and  Francis 
Johnson.  From  these  imprisoned  people  two  important  docu- 
ments come.  One  was  addressed  to  the  lord  treasurer  and  the 
other  to  her  majesty's  privy  council.  The  latter  makes  special 
mention  of  Greenwood  and  Johnson  as  being  of  the  persons 
from  whom  the  communication  came.  After  recounting  their 
sufferings  in  this,  they  say  further : 

It  were  long  to  relate  to  your  honors  all  their  [the  persecutors']  secret 
drifts  and  open  practises,  whereby  they  seek  to  draw  us  into  danger  and 
hatred  ;  as  by  their  subtle  questions  propounded,  not  having  or  knowing  any 
matter  to  lay  to  our  charge  ;  by  subordinate  conference,  now  almost  three 
years  since,  sent  into  the  prisons  to  well  nigh  sixty  faithful  christians,  whom 
they  there  against  all  law,  and  without  all  cause,  detained ;  by  indicting  us 
upon  the  statutes  made  for  disloyal,  idolatrous,  recusant  papists  though  they 
know  that  we  sincerely  hold  all  the  grounds  of  religion,  published  by  her 
majesty  in  harmony  of  confession,  and  never  refused  any  wholesome  doctrine 
or  truth,  shewed  us  in  God's  word,  but  only  withstand  such  popish  enormities 
as  they  bring  in  and  urge,  contrary  to  the  word  of  God ;  by  defaming  and 
divulging  us  as  anabaptist,  though  they  be  not  able  to  charge  us  with  any  one 
of  their  errors  to  our  faces ;  as  Donatists  and  schismatics,  though  we  have 
christian  faith  ;  as  seditious,  covenant  breakers,  though  they  still  by  their 
tyrrany  drive  us  into  these  secret  places  and  meetings ;  as  abridgers  and 
encroachers  on  the  royal  power  of  the  queen  —  though  we  from  our  hearts 
acknowledge  her  sovereign  power,  under  God,  over  all  persons,  causes,  and 
actions,  civil  or  ecclesiastical  — though  we  gladly  obey,  and  never  willingly 
break  any  of  her  godly  laws  ;  though  we  never  attempted  either  secretly  or 
openly  of  ourselves  to  suppres  or  innovate  anything,  how  enormous  soever, 
by  public  authority  established,  patiently  suffering  whatsoever  the  arm  of 
injustice  shall  do  unto  us  for  the  same;  doing  such  things  as  Christ  hath 
commanded  us  for  the  same ;  doing  such  things  as  Christ  hath  commanded 
us  in  his  holy  worship,  but  always  leaving  the  reformation  of  the  state  to  those 
whom  God  hath  set  to  govern  that  state ;  yet  we  are  all  accused  as  pernicious 
to  the  state  and  public  peace.'s 

From  these  answers  of  the  Brownists  it  is  ascertained  that 
the  charges  of  George  Gyffard  were  unfounded.  Also,  that 
Some's  arraignment  of  Penri  was  uncalled  for ;  but  that  the  lat- 
ter's  statements  concerning  Barrow  and  Greenwood  were  fairly 
accurate.  Some's  attempt  to  associate  the  name  Anabaptist 
with  them  was   resented,  as  Gyffard's  charge  of  Donatism  was 

=5Strype's  Atmah,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  127-36. 


BEGINNJNGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  35 

repudiated.  The  supporters  of  the  establishment  were  justified 
in  charging  the  Brownists  with  heretical  views  on  the  doctrine 
of  magistracy,  though  the  Brownists  did  not  at  all  concede  the 
right  of  private  judgment. 

A  formal  doctrinal  confession  of  the  Brownists,  put  forth  in 
the  year  1596,  is  decisive  enough  to  put  this  matter  entirely  at 
rest.  Its  title  runs  thus  :  "A  True  Confession  of  the  Faith,  and 
humble  acknowledgement  of  the  alegeance  which  we  hir  Majes- 
tie's  Subjects,  falsely  called  Brownists,  doo  hould  towards  God 
and  yield  to  hir  Majestic  and  all  other  that  are  over  us  in  the 
Lord"  (B.  M.  4103,  c.) .     The  thirty-ninth  article  reads: 

That  it  is  the  Office  and  duty  of  Princes  and  Magistrates,  who  by  the  ordi- 
nance of  God  are  supreme  Governors  under  him  over  all  persons  and  causes 
within  their  Realmes  and  Dominions,  to  suppress  and  root  out  by  their 
authority  all  false  ministeries,  voluntarie  Religions  counterfeyt  worship  of  God, 
to  abolish  and  destroy  the  IdoU  Temples,  Images,  Altares,  Vestments,  and  all 
other  monuments  of  Idolatrie  and  superstition  and  to  take  and  convert  to 
their  civile  uses  not  only  the  benefit  of  all  such  idolitrous  buyldings  &  monu- 
ments, but  also  the  Revenues,  Demeanes,  Lordships,  Possessions,  Gleabes, 
and  maintenance  of  anie  false  ministeries  and  unlawfuU  Ecclesiastical!  func- 
tions whatsoever  within  their  Dominions.  And  on  the  other  hand  to  estab- 
lish &  mayntein  by  their  lawes  every  part  of  God's  word,  his  pure  religion  and 
true  ministerie  to  cherish  and  protect  all  such  as  are  carefull  to  worship  God 
according  to  his  word  and  to  lead  a  godlye  lyfe  in  all  peace  and  loyaltie  ; 
yea  to  enforce  al  their  Subjects  whether  ecclesiastical  or  civile  to  do  their 
duties  to  God  and  men,  protecting  &  maynteyning  the  good,  punishing  and 
restreyning  the  evil  according  as  God  hath  commanded,  whose  Lieutenants 
they  are  heer  on  earth. 

Although  it  is  not  a  matter  of  controversy,  it  is  certainly  of 
interest  to  locate  the  position  in  this  contest  of  the  leaders  of 
the  Genevan  movement,  which  resulted  in  Presbyterianism. 
John  Knox  has  already  expressed  himself  in  his  "Answer  to  a 
Great  Nomber  of  Cavillations"  (pp.  19-21).  He  has  placed  him- 
self in  line  with  those  who  use  Old  Testament  persecutions  as 
examples  for  Christian  rulers.  That  Thomas  Cartwright  heartily 
agreed  with  Knox  upon  this  subject  ma}-  be  seen  by  the  exami- 
nation of  either  of  two  pamphlets.  His  "  Replye  to  an  answere 
of  M.  Doctor  Whitgift  Agaynste  the  admonition  to  Parliament" 
(B.  M.  108,  b.  4)   contains  a  lament  that  Whitgift   should   try   to 


36  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

associate  his  own  "brethren"  with  the  hated  Anabaptists,  adding 
specifically  that  "as  for  Magistrate  and  authoritie/we  acknowl- 
edge the  lawfulnesse/necessitie/and  singular  commoditie  of 
it/we  commende  it  in  our  ceremonies  to  others/."  This  denotes 
his  full  acceptance  of  the  magistrate's  claims  and  his  advocacy 
of  the  established  theory.  The  second  pamphlet  was  put  out  in 
1648,  long  after  Cartwright's  death,  and  at  the  time  when  this  con- 
test was  at  its  height.  Its  purpose  was  to  sustain  the  position  the 
Presbyterians  then  held,  by  the  aid  of  Cartwright's  authority.  It 
is  entitled  "  Helpes  for  Discovery  of  the  Truth  in  point  of  Tol- 
eration, being  the  Judgment  of  that  eminent  Scholler  Tho. 
Cartwright"  (B.  M.,  E.  423(19)).  This  production  consists  of 
quotations  from  Cartwright's  writings  which  touch  upon  the  sub- 
ject.    Two  passages  will  suffice  to  express  his  thought: 

Now  seeing  there  is  a  sword  in  the  magistrate's  hand  by  the  doctrine  of 
the  Apostles  ;  and  that  also  which  the  magistrate  must  draw ;  I  would  gladly 
know  where  that  necessity  of  drawing  this  sword  can  be  found,  if  it  be  not  in 
these  crimes  of  Blasphemy  &c.  which  I  have  set  downe  ? 
Again : 

And  therefore  as  the  short  and  easie  way  to  dry  up  the  channells  and 
Rivers  is  to  stop  up  the  head  and  fountaine  of  all,  so  the  only  remedy  of 
purging  the  commonwealth  of  these  mischiefes,  is  to  bend  the  force  of  sharp 
and  severe  punishments  especially  against  Idolaters,  Blasphemers,  Contem- 
ners of  true  Religion,  and  of  the  Service  of  God  (p.  7). 
Cartwright ^^  was  in  substantial  agreement  with  Calvin,  Knox, 
and  Beza,  whom  he  quoted.  As  a  sect  the  Genevans  in  England 
held  rigidly  to  conformity  as  a  theory,  while  they  could  not 
harmonize  with  the  establishment. 

John  Hooper,  the  noble  martyr  who  suffered  in  Queen  Mary's 
time,  is  frequently  mentioned  as  an  early  advocate  of  freedom  of 
conscience.  And  it  is  true  that  he  made  a  distinction  between 
civil  and  spiritual  obligations.^^  The  tribute  due  to  God  he 
would  not  have  rendered  to  the  king.      Moreover,  he  complained 

'^"But  the  reformers,  as  well  Puritans  as  others,  had  different  notions.  They 
were  for  one  religion,  one  uniform  mode  of  worship,  one  form  of  discipline  or  church- 
government,  for  the  whole  nation,  with  which  all  must  comply  outwardly,  whatever 
were  their  inward  sentiments  ;  it  was  therefore  resolved  to  have  an  act  of  parliament 
to  establish  a  uniformity  of  public  worship,  without  any  indulgence  to  tender  con- 
sciences." (Neal,  History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  I,  p.  95.) 

»7  Found  in  his  "  Declaration  of  the  X  holie  (Zo\Vimz.\\Am^vA%"  {Hooper's  Early 
Writings,  Parker  Society). 


BEGINNINGS  OF  THE  CONTEST  37 

that  the  princes  persecuted  "the  gospel  and  the  gospel-like  use 
of  the  sacraments."  This  complaint  was  not  strange,  since  he 
was  not  in  accord  with  the  views  of  the  church.  But  he  did  not 
go  so  far  as  to  advocate  the  right  of  private  judgment.  He  had 
no  sympathy  with  dissent.  Nothing  seemed  more  desirable  to 
him  than  that  a  good  king  should  forward  religious  affairs  as  he, 
Hooper,  saw  fit.      He  says  : 

Among  all  other  most  noble  and  famous  deeds  of  kings  and  princes,  none 
is  more  godly,  commendable,  nor  profitable  than  to  promote  and  set  forth  unto 
their  subjects  the  pure  and  sincere  religion  of  the   eternal   God,  King  of  all 

kings  and  Lord  of  all  lords But  the  more  this  noble  fact  is  glorious, 

godly  and  princely,  the  more  difficile  and  hard  it  is ;  for  the  enemy  of  God 
and  of  all  mankind,  the  devil,  customably  is  wont  to  deceive  the  princes  of 
the  world  so  that  they  utterly  neglect  the  religion  of  the  true  God  ;  as  a  thing 
foolish  and  of  no  estimation,  either  provoke  them  cruelly  to  persecute  it.-® 
Hooper  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  administration  of  eccle- 
siastical affairs  during  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.  There  were  some 
who  thought  it  wise  for  the  councilors  to  wait  until  the  king's 
maturity  before  taking  active  measures  in  religious  reform. 
Hooper  spoke  sternly  : 

Let  those  diabolical  sounds  and  speakings  of  evil  men  nothing  trouble 
your  highness  nor  your  wise  and  godly  councillors.  "  As  long  as  the  king  is 
in  his  tender  age  his  council  should  do  nothing  in  matters  of  religion."  For 
those  men's  foolishness,  rather  I  should  say  malice  is  condemned  by  the  word 
of  God,  that  teacheth  how  a  king  in  his  young  age  with  his  wise  and  godly 
council  should  abolish  idolatry  and  set  forth  the  true  and  godly  religion  of 
the  living  God.  Thus  declareth  the  notable  and  godly  fact  of  Josias  that  fol- 
lowed the  religion  of  his  father,  not  Ammon  the  idolater,  but  of  David  nor 
declining  to  the  right  hand  neither  to  the  left  hand.     (Pp.  437  i.) 

The  most  that  could  possibly  be  claimed  for  Hooper,  as  also 
for  many  others  of  his  time,  is  an  unsettled  state  of  mind  relative 
to  this  question,  resulting  from  his  attempt  to  reconcile  the  Old 
Testament  idea  of  magistracy  with  the  desire  to  introduce 
reforms  into  the  worship  speedily.  His  belief  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  king's  authority  over  all  persons  and  causes,  both  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  was  unshaken,  yet  his  own  position  as  a  dissenter 
from  the  established  worship  made  it  impossible  for  him  to 
appreciate  all  the  logical  consequences  of  his  hypotheses. 

=^®"An  Oversighte  and  deliberacion  uppon  the  holy  prophet  ]ona.s"  {Hooper's 
Early  Writings,  Parker  Society,  p,  435). 


CHAPTER  II. 

EARLY    STUART    PERIOD. 

At  the  accession  of  the  Stuarts  in  the  person  of  James  I.  the 
Puritans  were  sanguine  as  to  the  future  of  their  cause.  The 
king's  former  connection  with  the  Scottish  Calvinists,  and  his 
early  favorable  replies  to  their  addresses,  gave  occasion  for  high 
hopes.  Though  these  prospects  caused  them  to  rejoice,  their 
later  experiences  occasioned  depression.  James  himself  was 
either  flattered  as  being  disposed  to  leniency  or  was  really 
thought  to  be  disposed  to  it.  He  was  commended  by  the  non- 
conformists for  not  being  bloodthirsty  ;  while  at  the  same  time 
his  ecclesiastical  advisers  were  accused  of  urging  him  to  religious 
despotism.  As  he  came  so  early  in  his  reign  to  hold  his  now 
well-known  maxim,  "No  bishop,  no  king,"  it  seems  probable 
that  he  was  never  really  sincere  in  his  protestations  of  sympathy 
for  English  dissenters.  His  son  and  successor,  Charles  I.,  was 
educated  with  great  care.  James  gave  personal  attention  to  his 
training.  This  resulted  in  Charles  I.  being  the  most  learned  and 
the  most  stubborn  ruler  of  the  Stuart  line.  His  high  pretensions 
and  bigoted  zeal  formed  the  barrier  which  occasioned  the  rise  of 
Cromwell  and  the  consequent  explosion  of  the  theory  of  the 
divine  right  of  kings.  It  was  within  this  period  that  England's 
first  great  advocates  of  liberty  of  conscience  came  forward. 

Coincident  with  the  beginning  of  the  Pilgrim  movement  at 
Scrooby,  John  Smyth,  frequently  called  the  Se-baptist,  was 
actively  propagating  dissenting  principles  also  in  Lincolnshire. 
He.  too,  went  to  Holland  and  made  his  home  in  Amsterdam.  It 
is  not  mv  purpose  even  to  outline  the  movement  to  which  he 
gave  rise,  but  to  mention  that  from  his  party  there  seem  to  have 
arisen  strong  factors  for  the  campaign  against  persecution.  John 
Smyth  did  not  himself  live  to  escape  from  this  self-imposed  exile. 
He  did  not  even  effect  an  organization  of  any  permanence  in 
Holland.      His   own  views  even  were  not  well   settled.     Though 


EA ELY  S TUA R T  PERIOD  3 9 

a  dissenter,  he  was  a  university  man  of  no  small  culture.  The 
new  light  which  was  rapidly  dawning  on  his  susceptible  mind 
led  him  from  one  advanced  position  to  another  with  great  celer- 
ity. From  conservative  orthodoxy  he  plunged  into  Anabaptist 
heresy.  His  name  has  been  found  signed  to  a  confession  of 
faith,  consisting  of  thirty-eight  sections.  The  thirty-fifth  sec- 
tion concerns  the  doctrine  of  magistracy.  In  it  he  declares  that 
"this  office  of  the  worldly  authority  the  Lord  Jesus  hath  not 
ordained  in  his  spiritual  kingdom,  the  church  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, nor  adjoined  to  the  offices  of  his  church." 

This  expression  of  opinion  makes  it  probable  that  from  him 
has  descended  a  line  of  active  propagators  of  this  doctrine.  Of 
the  associates  of  Smyth  in  this  religious  enterprise  a  remnant 
returned  to  London  and  there  established  a  congregation.  We 
possess  but  little  information  concerning  them.  John  Robinson, 
the  pastor  of  the  Scrooby  congregation  at  Leyden,  felt  it  his 
duty  to  oppose  some  of  their  tenets,  and  so  wrote  an  answer  to 
their  confession  of  faith,  published  in  1614,  quoting  from  its 
pages.      He  reports  them  as  holding 

that  Christ's  disciples  must  love  their  enemies  and  not  kill  them  ;  pray  for 
them  and  not  punish  them,  and  Christ's  disciples  must  with  him,  be  perse- 
cuted, afflicted,  murdered  and  that  by  the  authority  of  the  magistrate.  That 
the  magistrate  is  not  to  meddle  with  religion  or  matters  of  conscience  nor  to 
compell  men  to  this  or  that  form  of  religion ;  because  Christ  is  the  King  and 
Lawgiver  of  the  church  and  conscience.*' 

The  original  document  containing  the  thought  and  a  part  of 
the  sentences  as  quoted  by  Pastor  Robinson  is  in  Dutch,  and  has 
recently  been  translated  into  English  by  Dr.  Miiller,  of  Amster- 
dam, and  printed  in  the  Appendix  to  B.  Evans'  "Early  English 
Baptists"  (Vol.  I,  pp.  257  f.).  This  statement  of  Robinson  is 
most  explicit  and  satisfactory.  Article  LXXXVI  of  the  con- 
fession of  faith  asserts 

that  the  magistrate,  by  virtue  of  his  office,  is  not  to  meddle  with  religion  or 
matters  of  conscience,  nor  to  compell  men  to  this  or  that  form  of  religion  or 
doctrine,  but  to  leave  the  Christian  religion  to  the  free  conscience  of  every 

=9  Of  Religious  Comtnunion,  Private  dr'  Publique,  Also  a  Survey  of  the  Confes- 
sion of  Faith  pub.  by  the  remaynders  of  Mr.  Smithes  Company,  pp.  128  f.  (B.  M. 
4323,  b.) 


40  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

one,  and   to   meddle   only   with   political   matters   (Rom.  xiii.   3,  4)   namely, 
injustice  and  wrong  of   one  aganist  another,  so  as  murder,  adultery,  theft  and 
the  like ;  because  Christ  alone  is  the  King  and    Lawgiver  of  the  church  and 
the  conscience.     (Jas.  iv.  12.)  3° 
They  further  declare,  in  the  next  article, 

that  the  magistrate,  so  far  as  he  will  follow  Christ  and  be  his  disciple,  ought 
to  deny  himself  take  up  his  cross  and  follow  him.  He  must  love  his 
enemies  and  not  kill  them  ;  pray  for  them  and  not  hate  them  ;  feed  them  and 
not  let  them  die  from  hunger  ;  he  must  visit  them  in  prison,  but  not  throw 
them  there ;  he  must  not  banish  them  out  of  the  country,  nor  divest  nor  rob 
them  of  their  goods,  or  appropriate  them  to  himself.  He  must  suffer  with 
Christ,  be  scolded,  slandered,  flogged,  beaten,  spit  on,  imprisoned,  and  put 
to  death  with  Christ,  and  that  by  the  power  of  the  magistrate,  which  it  is 
impossible  to  do,  and  to  keep  the  sword  of  vengeance. 
This  clear  outline  of  the  magistrate's  duties  as  a  magistrate 
and  as  a  Christian  was  a  conspicuous  part  of  the  heresy  of  this 
insignificant  band  of  English  Anabaptist  refugees  in  Holland. 

Pastor  Robinson  charges  the  writing  of  this  confession  upon 
Thomas  Helwys,3'  who  became  the  leader  of  the  congregation 
3°Masson,  in  commenting  on  the  declaration  of  faith  put  out  in  1611  by  these 
English  Anabaptists  m  Amsterdam,  calls  attention  to  the  expression,  "The  magistrate 
is  not  to  meddle  with  religion,"  etc.  He  says:  "It  is  believed  that  this  is  the  first 
expression  of  the  absolute  principle  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  in  the  public  articles  of 
any  body  of  Christians.     (David;  Masson,  Life  of  John  Milton,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  loi.) 

3'  The  doctrine  of  Thomas  Helwisse  is  preserved  to  us  in  An  Advertisement  or 
admonition  unto  the  Congregations  which  men  call  the  New  Fryelers,  in  the  lowe 
Countries,  written  in  Dutche  and  Publiched  in  Englis.  This  was  printed  in  1611. 
(B.  M.  702,  c.  32.)  He  treated  "  Magestracie  "  as  his  fourth  subject.  Holding  that 
magistracy  is  ordained  of  God,  and  that  the  magistrate  can  be  a  Christian,  he  further 
asserted  :  "  Hence  it  cometh  that  the  Pope  saith,  loe  heere  is  Christ,  and  seekes  to 
force  all  to  followe  Christ  with  him.  And  the  Bishopps  they  say  loe  heere  is  Christ 
and  they  seeke  to  compell  all  to  followe  Christ  with  them.  The  Presbytarie  they  say, 
loe  heere  is  Christ,  and  they  will  constraine  all  to  followe  Christ  with  them,  we  passe 
by  the  most  ungodly  &  unwise  Familists  and  scattered  flock  that  say  he  is  in  the  desert, 
that  is  no  where  to  be  found  in  the  profession  of  the  gospell  according  to  the  ordi- 
nances thereof  until  their  extraordinary  men  (they  dream  of)  come,  which  shall  not  be, 
until  there  come  a  new  Christ  &  a  new  gospell.  And  you  to  whom  we  especially 
write  you  say  loe  heere  is  Christ  and  you  would  have  all  to  followe  Christ  with  you. 
Now  in  these  troublesome  dayes  which  our  saviour  Christ  hath  foretold  of,  and,  are  now 
come  to  passe,  wherein  if  it  were  possible,  the  very  elect  should  be  deceaved  let  all 
the  godly  stay  themselves  upon  that  blessed  counsel  of  our  saviour  Christ  who  saith 
unto  all  that  will  followe  him,  take  yee  heed,  behold  I  have  shewed  you  al  things 
before.  Mark  13,  23  which  is  by  his  word,  and  therefore  thither  onely,  must  we  go 
and  followe  no  men."     (Pp.  51,  52.) 


EA  RL  Y  S  TUA  R  T  PERIOD  4 1 

and  conducted  it  back  to  Entrland.  This  Helwys,  or  Helwisse, 
was  quite  successful  in  establishing  his  people  in  London.  From 
this  inception  the  views  he  sustained  have  never  been  eradicated 
from  that  city.  It  is  from  this  once  wandering,  but  now 
returned,  company  of  sectaries  that  the  first  great  plea  for  lib- 
erty of  conscience  is  thought  to  have  come.^^  Thus  much  only 
is  known:  Leonard  Busher  was  an  Anabaptist,  a  citizen  of  Lon- 
don. The  only  information  concerning  his  literary  career  is  that 
in  i6 1 4  he  published  his  "  Religious  Peace,  Or  a  Plea  for  Liberty  of 
Conscience."  It  was  presented  to  King  James  and  the  high  court 
of  Parliament.33  Of  this  document  there  are  thirty-four  octavo 
pages  in  the  reprint  of  1646.  It  has  the  character,  not  of  a 
plaint,  but  of  an  argument.  The  author  sought  for  no  personal 
or  party  favor,  but  for  human  rights.  He  pleaded  an  authority 
higher  than  that  of  man.  The  reasons  adduced  in  this  remark- 
able argument  may  be  concisely  stated  as  follows : 

1.  "  Christ  has  not  commanded  to  persecute  the  people  for  difference  and 
judgment  in  matters  of  religion,"  but  has  "commanded  his  bishops  and 
ministers  to  persuade  Prince  and  people  to  hear  and  believe  the  gospel  by  his 
word  and  spirit,  and  to  beseech  Prince  and  people  to  be  reconciled  to  God." 

2.  The  tares  should  be  allowed  to  grow  together  with  the  wheat. 

3.  If  persecution  is  practiced,  true  ambassadors  of  Christ  are  liable  to 
suffer  the  severest  penalties. 

4.  Christ  came  into  the  world  to  save  men,  not  to  destroy  them. 

5.  Persecution  is  an  offense  to  those  who  are  not  Christians,  and  will  keep 
Jews,  Turks,  and  others  from  knowing  the  gospel. 

6.  One  cannot  try  the  spirits  to  see  whether  they  are  of  God,  "except 
they  heare  and  read  other  men's  doctrines  as  well  as  the  Bishops  and  their 
ministers." 

7.  If  freedom  of  conscience  is  not  allowed,  all  that  hold  the  apostolic  faith 
and  all  strangers  in  the  land  must  depart  or  their  Hves  be  in  danger.  This 
would  be  a  great  national  loss. 

32"  Now,  this  Helwisse,  returning  to  England  shortly  after  161 1,  drew  round  him  as 
we  saw,  the  first  congregation  of  General  or  Arminian  Baptists  in  London  ;  and  this 
obscure  Baptist  congregation  seems  to  have  become  the  depositary  for  all  England  of 
the  absolute  principle  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  expressed  in  the  Amsterdam  Confession, 
as  distinct  from  the  more  stinted  principle  advocated  by  the  general  body  of  Inde- 
pendents  It  was,  in  short,  from  their  little  dingy  meeting-house,  somewhere  in 

Old  London,  that  there  flashed  out,  first  in  England,  the  absolute  doctrine  of  Religious 
Liberty."     (Masson,  Life  of  John  Milton,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  102.) 

33  B.  M.  E.  334,  and  Tracts  on  Lib.  of  Con.,  Hansard  Knollys  So. 


42  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

8.  If  persecutions  continue,  the  "  state  will  have  many  dissemblers  in 
authority  and  office,  since  most  will  conforme  for  feare  of  persecution." 

9.  Forcing  the  people  to  attend  worship  at  the  church  is  not  bringing 
them  to  faith  and  piety. 

10.  "Some  men  believe  not  at  the  first  hour,  but  may  at  the  eleventh,  if 
not  persecuted  to  death  before." 

11.  Truth  unresisted  will  prevail. 

12.  Persecution  is  a  mark  of  the  beast. 

13.  Persecution  for  religion  is  forcing  the  conscience  and  tyrannizing  over 
the  soul,  as  well  as  over  the  body,  and  causes  men  to  make  a  shipwreck  of 
faith. 

14.  His  majesty  and  Parliament  object  to  having  their  consciences  forced 
by  the  bishop  of  Rome  and  his  princes. 

15.  "Kings  and  magistrates  are  to  rule  temporall  affairs  by  the  swords  of 
their  temporall  kingdoms  ;  and  Bishops  and  ministers  are  to  rule  spirituall 
affaires  by  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God ;  the  sword  of  Christ's  spiritual  king- 
dom, and  not  to  meddle  with  another's  authority,  office  and  function." 

16.  "If  the  beleeving  should  persecute  the  unbeleeving  to  death,  who 
should  remain  alive  ?  then  none  but  the  beleeving  should  live  in  the  world, 
and  the  unbelieving  should  dye  in  their  unbelief  and  so  perish  forever." 

This  document  presents  to  us  no  imaginative  Utopian  dream 
The  author  finds  his  hypotheses  in  the  established  Christian  sys- 
tem. The  entire  nation  had  committed  itself  to  that  system. 
Men  were  engaged  in  interpreting  it  rather  than  questioning  its 
foundations.  With  universally  admitted  hypotheses,  he  thrust 
forth  his  relentless  logic.  With  Christianity  admitted,  he  urged 
the  teachings  and  practice  of  Christ.  He  affirmed  that  the 
Word  should  be  proclaimed  and  people  reconciled  to  God 
through  faith.  Christ  came  to  save,  and  would  have  every 
obstacle  to  the  spread  of  the  gospel  removed.  The  evil  and 
all  unbelievers  are  to  be  allowed  every  opportunity  for  repent- 
ance. Attendance  upon  church  worship  is  no  substitute  for 
faith  and  piety.  Persecution  endangers  the  soul  by  pressing  it 
into  hypocrisy.      In  an  equal  contest  truth  will  gain  the  victor3^ 

Very  concisely  does  he  present  his  reason  for  advocating 
this  cause  : 

Therefore  permission  of  conscience  and  liberty  of  the  gospel  in  our  land 
of  Great  Britain,  wil  mightily  further  the  advancement  of  the  Apostolic  faith, 
and  chiefly  their  bookes  whereout  sufficient  matter  will  be  drawn  for  the  con- 
vincing of  every  particular  Religion  which  is  against  the  Religion  established 
by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  who  by  all  means  lawfull,  sought  the  conversion 


EA  RL  V  S  TUA  R  T  PERIOD  4  3 

and  the  salvation  both  of  Jews  and  Gentiles.  And  they  are  unconstant  and 
faithless  men,  or  at  least  very  ignorant,  that  think  error  will  overcome  and 
prevail  against  the  truth.     (P.  22.) 

These  thoughts  seem  trite  to  Protestant  Christians  at  the 
close  of  the  nineteenth  century,  but  they  sounded  strange  at 
the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth.  Such  frank  interpretation  of 
Scripture  Luther,  indeed,  had  indulged  in  for  a  few  months,  but, 
in  England,  nothing  of  this  nature  antedating  it  escaped  the 
flames  of  the  government  searchers. 

At  the  beginning  of  this  address  we  are  given  a  glimpse  of 
the  line  of  thought  through  which  Busher  was  led  to  his  uncom- 
promising position  on  liberty  of  conscience.      He  there  says  : 

In  all  humility  therefore  I  give  you  to  understand  that  no  Prince  or  People 
can  possible  attaine  that  one  true  Religion  of  the  Gospel,  which  is  acceptable 
to  God  by  Jesus  Christ,  meerely  by  birth,  {a)  for  Christ  saith,  Except  a  man 
be  born  again  he  cannot  see  the  kingdom  of  God.  Also  the  Apostle  James 
saith,  {b)  Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  by  the  word  of  God  who  liveth  and 
endureth  forever.  Therefore  Christ  commanded  this  word  to  be  preached  to 
all  nations,  that  thereby  they  may  attain  the  new  birth  ;  for  then  all  Princes 
and  peoples,  in  all  nations,  should  have  the  one  true  Religion  of  the  Gospel, 
the  which  you  see  and  grant  they  all  have  not,  yet  many  of  them  will  defend 
their  Religion  (wherein  they  were  born)  by  fire  and  sword,  as  if  it  were  their 
natural  and  earthly  inheritances  ;  or  had  with  fire  and  sword  been  gotten,  and 
therefore  will  with  fire  and  sword  maintain  and  defend  it.  But  your  majesty 
and  Parliament  may  please  to  understand  that  the  scriptures  doe  teach  that 
the  one  true  religion  is  gotten  by  a  new  birth,  even  by  the  word  and  spirit  of 
God,  and  therewith  also  it  is  only  maintained  and  defended.     (P.  i .) 

But  arguments  arising  from  religious  principles  do  not 
exhaust  Busher's  "Plea."  He  considers  also  the  national 
effects.  He  advances  the  claim  that  all  who  hold  the  apostolic 
faith,  that  is,  the  very  best  people,  are  forced  out  of  the  country 
by  these  persecutions.  More  than  that,  foreigners  in  the  land 
must  leave,  since  they  are  in  danger.  And,  in  point  of  fact, 
England  lost  much  of  her  best  blood  in  the  Pilgrim  and  Puritan 
migrations  to  New  England.  Further,  the  state  was  warned  that 
it  would  suffer  from  dissemblers  in  office,  which  its  own  policy 
was  producing.  The  king  and  Parliament  were  appealed  to  on 
the  ground  of  consistency.  Even  they  objected  to  the  preten- 
tious claims  of  the  papacy.  Then  why  should  they  make  similar 
demands  upon  the  people  ? 


44  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

This  pamphlet  is  worthy  a  place  among  the  most  famous 
writings  of  English  literature.  It  is  not  contained  in  the  realm 
of  polite  literature,  nor  is  it  remarkable  for  beauty  or  elegance  of 
expression  ;  but  who  has  considered  a  loftier  theme,  advocated 
a  more  unpopular  cause,  and  yet  put  forth  a  work  calculated  to 
produce  so  beneficent  an  effect  ?  Our  greatest  literature  is  the 
clearest  expression  of  our  highest  thoughts.  In  this  polemic  we 
have  a  pioneer  in  an  unfrequented  region  of  thought,  presenting 
boldly,  though  in  the  face  of  danger,  and  with  clearness  and 
force,  a  most  noble  conception.  No  limited  and  time-serving 
toleration  is  advocated.  No  impure  or  unworthy  motive  is 
pleaded.  No  narrow  and  partial  privilege  is  sought.  We  see  a 
man,  with  the  dignity  of  manhood,  laying  claim  to  human  rights. 
We  see  a  Christian,  with  faith  in  truth,  as  he  has  faith  in  God, 
pleading  the  cause  of  free  thought  and  free  speech.  We  behold 
a  lofty  soul,  animated  with  brotherly  love,  seeking  to  remove  the 
obstacles  to  the  highest  attainments  in  virtue  and  blessedness.^-' 

This    work   of    Leonard    Busher  had   not    been   long   out   of 

press  before  another  important  treatise  on  the  subject  appeared. 

'i Religious  Peace"   was   calculated  to  cause  much  comment  and 

questioning.     While  no  elaborate  answer  to  this  is  recorded  as 

appearing   immediately,   it    cannot  be    possible    that    it    did  not 

arouse  opposition  instantly.      Counter-arguments  were  doubtless 

advanced,  whether  they  appeared  in  print  or  not.     Such  attacks 

as   are  likely  to    have   been  made  were  offset  by  the   pamphlet, 

"Objections  answered  by  way  of  a  Dialogue,  wherein  is  Proved, 

By  the  Law  of  God, 

By  the  law  of  our  Land, 

And  by  his   Majesties  many  testimonies 

That  no  man  ought  to  be  persecuted  for  his  religion,  so  he  testifie 

his   allegiance   by  the  Oath  appointed  by  Law."  ^5     No   copy  of 

^  "  The  Baptists  were  foremost  in  the  advocacy  of  religious  freedom,  and  probably 
to  one  of  them,  Leonard  Busher,  citizen  of  London,  belongs  the  honour  of  presenting 
in  this  country  the  first  distinct  and  broad  plea  for  liberty  of  conscience.  It  is  dated 
1614,  and  is  prefaced  by  an  epistle  to  the  Presbyterian  reader ;  and  a  very  remarkable 
epistle  it  is,  deserving  a  renown  which  it  has  never  acquired."  (Stoughton,  Vol.  II, 
p.  221.) 

35  Crosby,  Hist,  of  Eng.  Bapt.,  Bodlian,  Tanner  (45). 


EARLY  STUART  PERIOD  4 5 


the  first  edition  of  this  work  (1615)  is  known  to  be  extant.  As 
published  under  another  title  in  1662,  it  contains  eighty-six 
octavo  pages,  and  consists  of  a  prefatory  "Epistle"  and  the  dia- 
logue. The  signature  which  follows  this  "  Epistle"  appears  in 
the  following  form :  "  By  Christ's  unworthy  Witnesses  His 
Majesty's  faithful  Subjects  Commonly  (but  most  falsely)  called 
Anabaptists."  The  authorship  of  this  is  ascribed  by  several 
historians  to  John  Murton,  a  citizen  of  London  and  the  writer  of 
several  pamphlets.  The  authorship  is  believed  to  have  been 
discovered  by  the  methods  of  the  higher  criticism. 3^ 

That  this  document  is  intended  to  supplement  the  preceding 
one  is  suggested,  not  only  by  the  general  character  of  it,  but  by 
the  particular  arguments.  Even  in  the  introductory  epistle, 
which  is  a  direct  plea  for  liberty  of  conscience,  thoughts  we  have 
not  met  hitherto  are  presented,  as  the  following,  for  example  : 

For  if  this  be  a  truth,  that  kings  of  the  earth  have  power  from  God  to 
compell  by  persecution  all  their  subjects  to  believe  as  they  believe,  then 
wicked  is  it  to  resist,  and  the  persecutions  of  such  are  justly  upon  them,  and 
the  magistrates  that  execute  the  same  are  clear  from  their  blood  and  it  is 
upon  their  own  heads. 

The  very  clearness  and  frankness  of  this  statement  of  the  case 
indicate  the  sincerity  and  courage  of  the  writer.  Then  in  a 
reference  to  the  bishops  he  presents  the  main  religious  argument 
of  the  opponents  : 

And  whereas  they  have  no  other  colour  or  ground  out  of  the  scriptures, 
than  that  they  have  canonized  a  law,  vis  "  That  whosoever  shall  affirm  that 
the  king's  majesty  hath  not  the  same  power  over  the  church  that  the  godly 
kings  of  Israel  had  under  the  law,  let  him  be  excommunicate  ipso  facto." 
He  does  not  even  neglect  the  adiaphoristic  argument, 37  but  turns 
it  to  account  strongly  in  his  demand  for  liberty  of  thought  and 
worship. 

36  E.  B.  Underhill,  Tracts  on  Lib.  of  Con.  Int.,  and  H.  M.  Dexter,  Congrega- 
tionalism, as  seen  in  its  Lit.,  Bibliography. 

37  The  adiaphoristic  controversy  arose  in  Germany  in  connection  with  the  attempt 
of  the  Catholics  and  Lutherans  to  arrive  at  some  conciliatory  agreement.  The 
Leipzig  Interim,  which  was  drawn  up  chiefly  by  Melanchthon,  recognized  certain 
things  as  indifferent.  The  use  of  candles,  altars,  crucifixes,  etc.,  were  so  declared. 
In  this  instance  the  conclusion  arrived  at  was  that  these  things  which  might  be  used 
without  making  any  difference  might  be  enforced  upon  the  people.  The  conclusion 
drawn  by  Busher  was  that  of  all  the  things  that  a  man  should  be  made  to  do  the 
indifferent  should  be  last. 


46  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

And  if  it  be  a  law  for  all  christians  that  in  indifferent  things  one  must 
not  offend  another,  but  the  strong  forbear  rather  than  offend  his  weak  brother, 
otherwise  he  wounds  the  weak  conscience  and  sins  against  Christ ;  then  how 
much  less  hath  any  man  power  to  be  lord  over  the  weak  conscience,  forcing 
it  to  practise  that  it  hath  not  faith  in,  bringing  it  thereby  unto  sin,  and  unto 
condemnation. 

The  "Dialogue"  is  a  long,  but  clearly  wrought  out  argument 
between  three  persons,  called  Antichristian,  Christian,  and  Indif- 
ferent. Antichristian  is  so  stubborn  in  his  opposition  to  liberty 
that  he  gives  up  in  disgust,  while  Indifferent  is  convinced  by 
Christian.  That  both  the  form  and  force  of  the  argument  may 
be  better  seen,  I  will  give  the  drift  of  the  dialogue,  retaining 
the  form,  but  condensing  the  thought  and  introducing  only  the 
contestants. 

Christian. — Without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God. 

Antichristian. —  It  is  the  king's  law  that  you  must  worship  in  the  churches 
of  the  establishment. 

C.— In  spiritual  things  you  should  urge  only  the  law  of  the  King  of  kings. 

A. — The  learned  of  the  land  have  considered  all  these  things,  and  set 
them  down.     Are  such  simple  men  as  you  likely  to  see  more  than  all  these  ? 

C. — The  learned  may  err. 

A. — Yes,  but  they  do  not. 

C. — The  pope  is  learned,  shall  he  be  obeyed  ?  The  power  and  authority 
of  the  king  are  earthly.  His  highness  is  supreme  head  and  governor  over 
all  his  subjects'  bodies  and  goods  within  his  dominions,  but  not  over  the  soul, 
as  Christ  assumed  no  civil  rule. 

A. —  Ananias  and  Sapphira  were  smitten,  Elymas  stricken  blind,  etc. 

C. —  God's  judgment  was  declared  unto  these,  but  the  apostles  did  not 
touch  them. 

A.—  "  Doth  not  Christ  in  the  parable  teach,  that  he  compelled  all  to  come 
in?" 

C. —  Yes,  but  not  with  carnal  weapons.  All  that  a  magistrate  can  do  is 
to  compel  me  to  bring  my  body,  and  unless  there  is  a  willing  mind  there 
is  no  acceptance  with  God. 

A. — "  If  all  religions  were  suffered,  treacheries  and  treasons  would  be 
plotted." 

C. — "  If  it  be  not  cleared  of  that,  let  all  men  abhor  it.  '  Let  the  good  and 
bad  grow  together  until  the  harvest.'  ....  All  subjects  should  protest 
their  allegiance  to  his  Majesty's  person,  crown  and  dignity,  and  let  the  dis- 
obedient be  disposed  of  at  his  Majesty's  pleasure." 

A. — "  It  were  a  lamentable  thing  if  that  bloody  (catholic)  religion  should 
be  practised  again  in  this  Kingdom." 


EARLY  STUART  PERIOD  4 ^ 

C. — "I  acknowledge  it  a  bloody  religion,  but  yours  is  also  a  cruel  bloody 
religion." 

A. — The  good  and  bad  must  grow  together  in  the  church. 

C. — Your  interpretation  of  the  parable  is  wrong.  And  if  you  believe  it  is 
right,  why  do  you  excommunicate  any  out  of  your  church  ?  The  field  is  the 
world.  The  good  and  bad  must  grow  together  in  it,  but  not  in  the  church. 
"  The  whole  New  Testament  throughout,  in  all  the  doctrines  and  practises  of 
Christ  and  his  disciples,  teaches  no  such  thing  as  compelling  men  by  perse- 
cutions and  afflictions  to  obey  the  gospel." 

A. — "Were  not  blasphemers  put  to  death  in  time  of  the  law?  " 

C. —  Yes;  but  would  you  have  blasphemers  put  to  death  now?  Paul 
was  once  a  blasphemer.     All  Jews  and  Papists  are  blasphemers. 

A. —  Hath  not  the  king  the  same  power  that  the  kings  of  Israel  had,  who 
compelled  men  to  the  observation  of  the  law  of  God  ? 

C. — No  ;  Christ  is  the  present  king  of  Israel. 

A. —  If  freedom  of  religion  should  be  granted,  there  would  be  such 
divisions  as  would  breed  sedition  and  innovation  in  the  state. 

C. — "Christ,  the  Prince  of  peace,  came  not  to  send  peace  on  the  earth,  but 
a  sword.  Behold  the  nations  where  freedom  of  religion  is  permitted,  and 
you  may  see  there  are  not  more  flourishing  and  prosperous  nations  under  the 
heavens  than  they  are."  "  Magistracy  is  God's  blessed  ordinance  in  its  right 
place  ;  but  let  us  not  be  wiser  than  God  to  devise  him  a  means  for  the 
publishing  of  his  gospel,  which  he  that  had  power  had  not,  nor  hath  com- 
manded." 

A. — The  king's  majesty  requireth  your  allegiance  to  be  testified  by  your 
coming  to  church. 

C. —  It  would  be  most  abominable  to  God  for  me  to  come  to  church,  not 
of  conscience,  but  in  hypocrisy.  Such  a  course  would  rather  harden  my 
heart  to  work  villainy. 

Christian  goes  on  to  quote  sentences  from  the  king's  addresses 
which  express  sympathy  with  toleration.  He  finds  the  cause  of 
persecution  in  their  heritage  from  Romanism.  He  believes  that 
the  occasion  for  persecution  would  be  removed  by  the  acceptance 
of  believers'  baptism. 

This  pamphlet,  following  so  closely  that  of  Busher,  is  also 
worthy  of  renown.  Its  findings  are  entirely  consonant  with  the 
former,  yet  it  enlarges  upon  the  argument  and  meets  objections 
which  adversaries  were  raising.  Like  the  work  of  Busher,  it  is 
dignified,  descending  to  no  slurs,  indulging  in  no  sarcasm,  and 
seeking  to  strain  no  point.  It  is  also  preeminently  a  religious 
argument.      It  recognizes  no  impure  nor  unworth}'  motive. 


48  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY    OF  CONSCIENCE 

The  first  edition  of  this  "Dialogue"  appeared  in  1615,  and  a 
second  came  out  in  1620.  The  personal  element  in  this  is  not 
strong  enough  to  warrant  the  supposition  that  prominent  church- 
men had  yet  begun  their  literary  attacks  upon  these  daring 
adventurers.  The  contest  was  as  yet  confined  to  narrow  limits. 
Its  significance  had  not  begun  to  be  appreciated  by  the  supporters 
of  the  government.  This  latter  year  (1620)  another  work  was 
published,  by  an  unknown  Anabaptist  again,  under  the  elaborate 
title:  "A  Most  Humble  Supplication  of  Many  of  the  King's 
Majesty's  Loyal  Subjects,  Ready  to  Testify  all  Civil  Obedience 
by  the  Oath  of  Allegiance,  or  otherwise,  and  that  of  conscience ; 
Who  are  Persecuted  (only  for  Differing  in  Religion)  contrary  to 
Divine  and  Human  Testimonies."  This  also  was  reprinted  in 
1662,  and  is  preserved  to  us  only  in  a  copy  made  by  Crosby  and 
published  in  17 —  in  the  second  volume  of  his  "History  of  the 
English  Baptists."  Some  think  that  sufficient  similarity  between 
this  and  John  Murton's  "Description  of  what  God  hath  predes- 
tinated concerning  Man"  exists  to  justify  the  assumption  that  he 
is  also  the  author  of  this.s^  That  both  these  treatises  on  liberty 
could  not  have  been  from  one  author  seems  plain  from  the 
diverse  habits  of  mind  which  manifest  themselves.  The  author 
of  the  "Dialogue"  seems  disposed  to  tell  the  truth,  while  the 
writer  of  the  "Supplication"  is  concerned  to  make  a  weighty 
argument.  This  third  document  may  properly  be  considered 
supplementary  to  the  second,  yet  this  argues  nothing  for  author- 
ship. It  is  noteworthy  that  all  of  these  treatises  differ  from 
each  other  so  largely  in  character  and  evidence. 

The  "Supplication"  is  addressed  to  King  James,  Prince 
Charles,  the  nobility,  judges,  and  gentry  in  Parliament.  In  the 
introduction  the  author  arrays  his  authorities  against  persecution. 
He  says  : 

The  vileness  of  persecuting  the  body  of  any  man,  only  for  the  cause  of 
conscience,  is  against  the  word  of  God  and  the  law  of  Christ.  It  is  against 
the  profession  of  your  majesty  ;  against  the  profession  and  practise  of  famous 
princes ;  the  ancient  and  later  approved  writers  witness  against  it ;  so  do  the 
puritans ;  yea  the  establishers  of  it,  the  papists  themselves,  inveigh  against 
it ;  so  that  God  and  all  men  do  detest  it,  as  is  herein  showed. 
38  Tracts  oti  Lib.  of  Con.,  p.  187. 


EARLY  STUART  PERIOD  49 

This  is  rather  a  hopeful  view  of  the  situation,  as  the  facts 
which  call  for  such  an  argument  manifest.  He  overstepped  the 
bounds  of  sober  truth  in  his  desire  to  make  a  strong  argument 
from  testimony.  The  king's  early  promises  to  the  English 
dissenters  might  well  be  quoted  to  impress  upon  him  his  duty, 
but,  considering  his  later  expressions  and  his  continuous  practice, 
they  would  hardly  serve  as  expressions  of  his  opinion.  Princes 
of  certain  foreign  nations  are  properly  cited.  Luther's  momen- 
tary advocacy  of  liberty  should  not  be  taken  advantage  of  by 
those  who  desire  to  bolster  their  cause  by  his  authority,  for  he 
completely  repudiated  these  early  statements.  As  to  the  Puritans, 
the  justice  of  his  claims  regarding  them  is  considered  else- 
where. It  should  be  noticed,  however,  that  the  author  is 
inveighing  against  persecution  rather  than  recommending  the 
right  of  private  judgment,  and  all  classes,  even  the  Papists, 
objected  to  being  themselves  persecuted. 

The  author's  line  of  argument  is  discovered  in  the  subjects 
given  to  the  various  chapters.  From  these  are  made  apparent 
the  depth  and  breadth  of  the  production.  The  premises  are 
seen  to  be  set  forth  with  great  particularity.  These  subjects  are 
as  follows : 

I.  The  rule  of  faith  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  contained  in  the 
sacred  scriptures,  and  not  any  church,  council,  prince,  or  potentate,  nor  any 
mortal  man  whatsoever. 

II.  The  interpreter  of  this  rule  is  the  scriptures,  and  Spirit  of  God  in 
whomsoever. 

III.  That  the  Spirit  of  God,  to  understand  and  interpret  the  scriptures,  is 
given  to  all  and  every  particular  person  that  fear  and  obey  God,  of  what 
degree  soever  they  be  ;  and  not  to  the  wicked. 

IV.  Those  that  fear  and  obey  God,  and  so  have  the  Spirit  of  God  to  search 
out  and  know  the  mind  of  God  in  the  scriptures,  are  commonly,  and  for  the 
most  part,  the  simple,  poor,  despised  &c. 

V.  The  learned  in  human  learning,  do  commonly  and  for  the  most  part 
err,  and  know  not  the  truth,  but  persecute  it  and  the  professors  of  it;  and 
therefore  are  no  further  to  be  followed  than  we  see  them  agree  with  truth. 

VI.  Persecution  for  the  cause  of  conscience,  is  against  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus  Christ,  King  of  kings. 

VII.  Persecution  for  cause  of  conscience  is  against  the  profession  and 
practise  of  famous  princes. 


50  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

VIII.  Persecution  for  cause  of   conscience  is  condemned  by  antient  and 
later  writers,  yea,  by  puritans  and  papists. 

IX.  It  is  no  prejudice  to  the  commonwealth  if  freedom  of  religion  were 
suffered,  but  would  make  it  flourish. 

X.  Kings  are  not  deprived  of  any  power  given  them  of  God,  when  they 
maintain  freedom  for  cause  of  conscience. 

This  production  is  remarkable  for  its  resistless  logic.  Much 
care  was  taken  with  the  order.  The  argument  is  condensed  and 
an  attempt  made  to  state  it  with  perspicuity.  Falling  in  with 
the  dominant  tendency  of  the  time,  many  quotations  were  made, 
especially  from  the  church  fathers.  Notwithstanding  its  illustrious 
predecessors,  this  work  also  is  noteworthy,  and  evidently  occupied 
a  large  place  in  the  great  battle  which  was  beginning  to  rage. 

These  three  documents,  coming  out  within  six  years,  could 
not  but  create  a  great  stir  in  the  circles  of  English  thought. 
The  following  decades  make  this  evident.  After  this,  no  one 
acquainted  with  the  literature  of  that  time  need  have  asked  con- 
cerning the  doctrine  of  this  sect  on  the  subject  of  magistracy. 
Yet  a  curious  instance  of  an  enemy's  missing  the  mark,  though 
not  from  ignorance  of  the  views  of  these  people,  is  seen  in  "  A 
Discovery  of  the  Errors  of  the  English  Anabaptists,  by  Edmond 
Jessop  who  sometime  walked  in  the  said  errors  with  them." 
(B.  M.  4135,  bb.  6,  p.  94.  Date  1623.)  He  treats  as  his  "  Eighth 
point,  that  a  king  or  magistrate  cannot  be  a  true  christian  except 
he  give  over  his  kingly  office  or  Magistracie."  He  answers  it, 
beginning  thus  : 

This,  although  it  be  not  fully  the  opinion  of  these  our  English  Anabap- 
tists, yet  because  it  is  a  point  so  generally  held  among  the  other  sects  of 
them,  and  for  that  these  (with  others)  are  not  yet  rightly  informed  as  touching 
the  authoritie  of  kings  &  governours,  what  it  is,  how  far  it  doth  extend,  nor 
yet  how  far  forth  Christians  are  bound  to  obey  and  submit  unto  them  ;  we  will 
first  disprove  that  error  of  the  elder  Anabaptists,  then  shew  what  the  author- 
itie of  kings  and  governours  is,  how  far  it  doth  extend,  how  far  forth  every  true 
christian  is  bound  by  the  word  of  God  (as  he  is  a  subject  or  citizen)  to  obey 
and  submit  unto  them. 

Jessop,  in  his  desire  to  find  a  startling  subject  about  which  to 
write,  may  be  said  at  the  best  to  have  concerned  himself  to  do  a 
thing  which  John  Greenwood  called  "  writing  a  new  last  year's 
kalender." 


EA  RL  V  S  TUA  R  T  PERIOD  5  I 

Additional  testimony  as  to  the  position  of  the  Anabaptists  in 
this  part  of  the  contest,  as  well  as  a  revelation  of  the  stand  taken 
by  the  early  Independents,  exists  in  the  writings  of  Pastor  John 
Robinson.  He  had  printed,  in  1614,  an  article  treating  "  Ot 
Religious  Communion,  Private  &  Public,  With  the  Silencing  of 
the  Clamours  Raised  by  Mr.  Thomas  Helwisse  Against  Our 
Retaining  the  Baptism  Received  in  England  and  Administering 
of  Baptism  unto  Infants,  as  also  A  Survey  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith  Published  in  Certain  Conclusions  by  the  Remainders  of 
Mr.  Smyth's  Company."  39  The  subject  of  sec.  xii  is  "Magis- 
tracy and  Oaths."      It  reads  thus  : 

In  conclusion  83,  where  the  office  of  the  magistrate  is  called  a  "  permis- 
sive ordinance  of  God  "  it  is  both  a  contradiction,  and  evil  speaking  of  them 
in  authority.  Where  it  is  called  "  an  ordinance  of  God  "  it  is  confessed  good 
for  "  every  creature  of  God  is  good"  and  all  his  ordinances  are  his  creatures  ; 
and  so  many  things  are  ascribed  to  the  office  of  Magistrates  in  this  and  the 
other  Conclusions  about  it  which  prove  it  to  be  good  and  lawful  in  itself,  but 
where  it  is  made  permissive  it  is  condemned  as  evil  since  only  evil  is  per- 
mitted or  suffered  of  God.  And  where  it  is  objected,  Proposition  85,  that 
Christ's  disciples  must  love  their  enemies,  and  not  kill  them,  pray  for  them 
and  not  punish  them  &c.  I  answer  that  the  godly  magistrate  may  do  both. 
Doth  not  God  punish  with  temporal  death  those  whom  he  loveth  ?  and  why 
may  not  God's  deputies,  the  gods  upon  earth,  be  minded  as  God  herein  ? 
Psa,  Ixxxii.  i.  6.  When  the  godly  kings  and  governors  in  Israel  were  com- 
manded to  execute  judgment  and  justice  upon  the  people  for  their  transgres- 
sions, were  they  commanded  not  to  love  them,  and  not  to  pray  for  them  ? 
When  Mr.  Smyth  in  his  sickness,  tells  his  children,  as  it  is  in  the  end  of  the 
book  "that  if  he  live  he  must  correct  and  beat  them,  as  God  did  him,"  doth 
he  not  answer  the  objection,  and  show  that  these  two  may  well  stand  together, 
as  in  the  private  father  so  in  the  public  father,  the  magistrate  ?  Where  again 
it  is  said  that  "  Christ's  disciples  must  with  him  be  persecuted,  afflicted,  mur- 
dered "  and  "that  by  the  authority  of  the  magistrate  ;  "  I  do  answer:  that 
those  things  are  not  simply  necessary  for  all  persons,  but  as  God  calls  men 
unto  them.  And  second,  both  the  scriptures  and  other  stories  do  testify  that 
godly  magistrates  themselves  have  suffered  these  things  for  the  Lord  and  his 
truth,  and  for  well  doing  ;  sometimes  the  inferior  magistrate  by  the  superior 
and  sometimes  the  governors  by  the  people  under  them.  Instances  we  have 
hereof  in  Moses,  David,  Gedaliah,  Daniel,  Shadrach,  Meshac  and  Abednego 

with  Nicodemus,  and  others  many  more They  add  that  the  magistrate 

is  not  to  meddle  with  religion  or  matters  of  conscience,  nor  to  compel  men  to 
this,  or  that  form  of  religion,  because  Christ  is  the  king  and  Lawgiver  of  the 

39  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  chap,  vi,  p.  275. 


52  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

church  and  conscience."  I  answer  that  this  indeed  proves  that  he  may  alter, 
devise  or  estabhsh  nothing  in  religion  otherwise  than  Christ  hath  appointed, 
but  proves  not  that  he  may  not  use  his  lawful  power  lawfully  for  the  further- 
ance of  Christ's  kingdom  and  laws.  The  prophet  Isaiah,  speaking  of  the 
church  of  Christ  foretells  that  kings  shall  be  her  nursing  fathers  and  queens 
her  nursing  mothers  :  Is.  xlix.  23.  And  where  these  men  make  this  the 
magistrates'  only  work,  "  that  justice  and  civility  may  be  preserved  amongst 
men,"  the  apostle  teacheth  another  end,  which  is,  "  that  we  may  lead  a 
peaceable  life  under  them  in  all  godliness."  1  Tim.  II.  2.  It  is  true  that  they 
have  no  power  against  the  laws,  doctrines  and  religion  of  Christ ;  but  for  the 
same,  if  their  power  be  of  God,  they  may  use  it  lawfully,  and  against  the 
contrary.  And  so  it  was  in  special  foretold  by  John,  that  the  kings  of  the 
earth  should  make  the  whore  desolate  and  naked,  and  eat  her  flesh  and  burn 
her  with  fire.    Rev.  xvii.  16. 

After  a  deliverance  of  this  kind  Robinson  might  have  joined 
in  with  his  predecessor,  Robert  Browne,  in  exclaiming:  "Seeing 
we  graunt  and  hold  thus  much,  howe  doe  they  charge  us  as  evil 
willers  to  the  Queene  (magistrate)?"  It  is  true  that  he  does 
limit  him  in  his  legislative  capacit}',  but  he  makes  him  the  public 
father  and  the  earthl)'  god.  He  attributes  to  him  authority  to 
"  make  the  whore  desolate  and  naked,  and  eat  her  flesh  and  burn 
her  with  fire,"  though  he  did  not  specify  who  should  decide  as 
to  the  identity  of  that  creature. 

This  pronounced  and  unequivocal  expression  of  Pastor  Robin- 
son's opinion  was  published  the  same  year  that  Leonard  Rusher's 
remarkable  claims  were  set  forth.  But  this  was  not  Robinson's 
latest  treatment  of  the  subject.  Five  years  after  (16 19)  he  dis- 
cussed it  again  under  the  title  "  A  Just  and  Necessary  Apology. "*° 
Chap,  xi  of  this  deals  with  the  civil  magistrate  in  the  following 
words  : 

We  believe  the  very  same  touching  the  civil  magistrate  with  the  Belgic 
Reformed  churches,'*'  and   willingly  subscribe   to   their  Confession  ;  and  the 

4°  Works,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  62  f. 

*^  Belgic  Confession,  Article  X.XyNl,''Oi  Magistrates."— "We  believe  that  our 
gracious  God,  because  of  the  depravity  of  mankind,  hath  appointed  kings,  princes  and 
magistrates,  willing  that  the  world  should  be  governed  by  certain  laws  and  poHcies ; 
to  the  end  that  the  dissoluteness  of  men  might  be  restramed,  and  all  things  carried 
on  among  them  with  good  order  and  decency.  For  this  purpose  he  hath  invested 
the  magistracy  with  the  sword,  for  the  punishment  of  evil  doers,  and  for  the  praise  of 
them  that  do  well.  And  their  office  is,  not  only  to  have  regard  unto  and  watch  for 
the  welfare  of  the  civil  state,  but  also  that  they  protect  the  sacred  ministry,  and  thus 


EARLY  S TUA R 7  PERIOD  5 3 

more  because  what  is  by  many  restrained  to   the  christian  magistrate   they 

extend  indefinitely,  and  absolutely  to  the  magistrate  whomsoever The 

Magistrate  though  a  heathen,  hath  power  as  the  minister  of  God  for  the  good 
of  his  subjects,  Rom.  xiii.  4.  to  command  and  procure  in  and  by  good  and 
lawful  manner  and  means,  whatsoever  appertains  either  to  the  natural  or 
spiritual  life  so  the  same  be  not  contrary  to  God's  word ;  .  ,  .  .  Lastly,  If  any 
civil  and  coactive  power  in  things  whether  civil  or  ecclesiastical  come  to  the 
magistrate  by  his  Christianity,  then  if  it  so  fall  out  that  he  make  defection 
from  the  same  whether  by  idolatry  or  heresy  or  profaneness  it  must  follow 
that  thereupon  his  kingly  power  is  diminished  and  abridged  ;  whereby  how 
wide  a  window  or  gate  rather  would  be  opened  to  seditious  subjects  under 
pretext  of  (specially  catholic)  religion,  to  raise  tumults  in  kingdoms  no  man 
can  be  ignorant. 

Thus  do  we  find  the  great  leader  of  Congregationalism 
standing  firmly  for  coercion  of  religious  thought  and  action. 
His  attempt  has  been  to  find  Scripture  warrant  for  his  doctrines, 
though  his  attitude  has  been  largely  determined  by  fear  of 
national  disorders.  Though  expecting  new  light  to  break  out 
from  God's  word  in  the  future,  Robinson  provided  no  means  in 
his  system  of  thought  for  this  truth,  when  newly  discovered,  to 
be  accepted  by  men.'^^      Nor  does   Pastor   Robinson  stand  alone 

may  prevent  and  remove  all  idolatry  and  false  worship  ;  that  the  kingdom  of  anti- 
christ may  thus  be  destroyed,  and  the  kingdom  of  Christ  promoted.  They  must 
therefore,  countenance  the  preaching  of  the  gospel  everywhere,  that  God  may  be 
honored  and  worshiped  by  every  one,  as  he  commands  in  his  Word. 

"  Moreover,  it  is  the  bounden  duty  of  every  one,  of  what  state,  quality,  or  condi- 
tion soever  he  may  be,  to  subject  himself  to  the  magistrates ;  to  pay  tribute,  to  show 
due  honor  and  respect  to  them,  and  to  obey  them  in  all  things  which  are  not  repug- 
nant to  the  Word  of  God  ;  to  supplicate  for  them  in  their  prayers,  that  God  may  rule 
and  guide  them  in  their  ways,  and  that  we  may  lead  a  quiet  and  peaceable  life  in  all 
godliness  and  honesty. 

"  Wherefore  we  detest  the  error  of  the  Anabaptists  and  other  seditious  people, 
and  in  general  all  those  who  reject  the  higher  powers  and  magistrates,  and  would 
subvert  justice,  introduce  a  community  of  goods,  and  confound  that  decency  and  good 
order  which  God  hath  established  among  men."  (Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom, 
Vol.  Ill,  pp.  432  f .) 

*^  Nothing  is  plainer  than  that  in  this  investigation  one  cannot  credit  a  writer's 
mere  profession  that  he  believes  in  freedom  of  conscience.  The  phrase  was  very 
ambiguous.  Not  a  few  made  that  profession  who  firmly  believed  that  heretics  should 
be  burned.  We  find  a  notable  example  of  this  in  Pastor  Robinson.  He  would  have 
the  conscience  free,  he  said,  but  he  further  stated  that  none  should  be  permitted  to 
oppose  conscience  (Vol.  II,  Ashton  ed.,  pp.  193  f.).  In  this  he  took  it  for  granted 
that  when  one's  views  did  not  agree  with  what  he  thought  to  be  orthodox,  that  person 
was  opposing  his  own  conscience.     The  question  to  be  asked  of  each  one  is :  Did  he 


54  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY    Oh   CONSCIENCE 

among  the  Congregationalists  in  sustaining  the  pretensions  of 
the  rulers  in  this  period.  In  1616  appeared  a  work  entitled  "A 
Confession  and  Protestation  of  the  Faith  of  Certaine  christians 
in  England,  Published  for  the  clearing  of  said  christians  from 
the  slander  of  Schism  and  Noveltie,  and  also  of  Separation  & 
undutifulness  to  the  magistrate  which  their  rash  enemies  doe 
falsely  cast  upon  them.  Also  a  humble  Petition  to  the  K. 
Majestic  for  Toleration  therein."  (B.  M.  4103,  a.  19.)  This 
work  is  commonly  ascribed  to  H.  Jacob,  an  Independent  writer, 
but  whether  rightly  or  not  makes  little  difference,  since  the 
internal  evidence  makes  plain  its  origin  from  an  Independent 
source.  (See  Art.  XXVIII.)  The  twenty-seventh  article  treats 
"  of  the  civil  Magistrates  duety,  and  charge  to  oversee  and  order 
his  churches  in  Spiritual  Matters."      It  reads  : 

Wee  believe  that  we,  and  all  true  visible  churches  ought  to  be  overseene 
and  kept  in  good  order  and  peace  &  ought  to  be  governed  (under  Christ)  both 
supreamely  and  also  subordinately  by  the  Civill  Magistrate  :  yea  in  all  causes 
of  religion  when  need  is,  By  which  rightful!  power  of  his  he  ought  to  cherish 
and  preferre  the  godly,  and  religious,  and  punish  (as  truth  and  right  shall 
require)  the  untractable  and  the  unreasonable.  Howbeit  yet  always  but  civ- 
illy. And  therefore  we  from  our  hart  most  humblie  doe  desire  that  our 
gracious  sovereigne  King  would  (himselfe  so  far  as  he  seeth  good,  and  further 
by  some  substituted  civill  Magistrate  under  him)  in  clemency  take  this  spe- 
cial oversight  and  government  of  us,  by  whose  ordering  and  protection  we 
most  humbly  commit  ourselves,  acknowledging  that  because  we  want  the  use 
of  this  divine  ordinance,  That  therefore  most  greate,  and  infinite  evills  both 
to  us,  and  even  to  the  whole  kingdom  doth  ensue,  and  also  because  of  the 
spirituall  Lords  their  government  over  us.  And  notwithstanding  the  spirituall 
Lords''^  doe  think  it  injury  and  wrong  to  themselves  not  small,  if  the  king 

believe  in  coercion  or  restriction  in  religious  thought  or  practice  when  others'  rights 
were  not  invaded?  Robinson  believed  in  persecution,  as  may  be  further  seen  in  the 
following  quotation :  "Are  you  ignorant,  Mr.  B.,  that  civil  actions  as  they  draw  scan- 
dalous sin  with  them,  may  be  censured  ecclesiastically,  as  may  also  religious  actions 
be  punished  civilly  by  the  magistrate,  which  is  the  preserver  of  both  tables,  and  so  to 
punish  all  breaches  of  both,  especially  such  as  draw  with  them  the  violation  of  the 
positive  laws  of  the  kingdom,  or  disturbance  of  common  peace  ?"  {Works,  Ashton  ed.. 
Vol.  II,  p.  193)-  Ilie  two  tables  referred  to  are  the  ten  commandments  of  the  Mosaic 
law.  In  preserving  the  first  table  tlie  magistrate  must  force  an  acceptance  of  Jehovah 
upon  the  people. 

^The  spiritual  lords  referred  to  are  the  bishops,  the  claims  of  whom  the  Inde- 
pendents have  never  admitted. 


EARLY  S  TUA  R  T  PERIOD  5  5 

should  substitute  civill  magistrates  to  this  business,  yet  (as  it  is  said)  that  is 
Gods  owne  ordinance,  namely  to  commit  either  spirituall  or  civill  government 
(viz.  Diocesan  or  provincial)  to  Ministers  is  evil;  and  as  we  believe  a  direct 
transgression  of  the  text  of  the  Gospell  above  rehearsed  in  artical  4.10.24. 

Here  again  it  is  indicated  that  the  early  Independents 
accepted  as  much  of  the  prevalent  theory  of  magistracy  as  they 
could  make  consistent  with  their  congregational  form  of  govern- 
ment. The  diocesan  bishops  and  all  spiritual  lords  were  ruled 
out  by  these  notions  of  religious  equality  and  democracy.  Con- 
ceding, then,  that  the  church  must  be  coerced  into  the  perform- 
ance of  its  function,  they  lighted  upon  the  civil  ruler  to  do  this, 
as  Scripture  allowed  him  a  place  in  the  social  economy.  This 
shifting  of  the  duties  of  rulers  made  the  position  of  the  Congre- 
gationalists  hard  to  be  understood. 

In  the  "  Plea,"  which  is  in  connection  with  this  confession 
and  protestation,  are  a  few  expressions  which  throw  even  greater 
light  upon  the  position  of  the  Independents  in  this  their  forma- 
tive period.  The  question  of  their  rights  seems  not  yet  to  have 
disturbed  their  minds. 

The  publike  places  with  peace  and  protection  under  your  Highness  would 
be  in  this  vi^orld  the  greatest  blessing  and  benefite  which  our  heart  desireth, 
or  which  could  come  to  us.  But  we  dare  not  expect,  neither  do  we  ask  so 
great  favour  at  your  Majesties  handes  ;  only  that  in  private  peaceably  we 
might  serve  God  with  cleare  and  quiet  consciences  according  to  the  effect  of 
our  fore  remembered  Cofession,  we  in  all  lowlinesse  crave  your  Toleration. 

From  all  this  it  appears  that  the  Independent  congregations 
of  that  time  desired  the  civil  government  to  assume  a  guardian- 
ship over  their  churches,  taking  them  under  its  protection, 
establishing  a  civil  court  "to  cherish  and  preferre  the  godly  and 
religious,  and  punish  the  untractable  and  unreasonable."  They 
desired  to  avoid  the  domination  of  the  bishops,  but  did  not  hope 
for  equality  with  the  established  church.  Either  they  questioned 
the  rightness  of  the  existence  of  sects  or  were  led  by  policy  to 
refrain  from  declaring  the  whole  of  their  doctrine.  Their  accept- 
ance of  the  king's  prerogative  seems  to  be  advanced  as  an  argu- 
ment for  the  king's  winking  at  their  existence. 

From  this  time  (161 6)  on  for  over  a  score  of  years  but  little 
from    the   Brownists  on  our  subject  has  been   preserved  to   us. 


56  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

During  the  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Charles  I.,  up  to  his  break 
with  Parliament,  the  state  was  in  a  great  political  ferment.^t  The 
contest  between  the  Parliament  and  the  king  became  all-absorb- 
ing. Only  just  before  this  break  did  this  phase  of  religious 
discussion  become  prominent  again.  In  1641  "The  Humble 
Petition  of  the  Brownists"  was  addressed  to  the  Parliament.  It 
presents  evidence  of  a  great  temporary  change  of  thought  among 
at  least  some  of  the  Independents.  Their  first  expression  for 
liberty  of  conscience  comes  to  light  in  this  (B.  M.,  E.  178  (10), 
pp.  3  f.).  Who  the  particular  author  or  authors  of  this  may 
have  been  does  not  appear,  nor  was  the  opinion  herein  expressed 
maintained.  Yet  it  still  deserves  a  full  presentation.  It  is  a 
remarkable  protestation  of  Christian  charity  to  come  to  us  from 
the  first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century.     It  reads : 

If  therefore  the  Brownists  upon  scruple  of  their  tender  conscience,  and 
grounded  upon  the  word  will  separate  themselves,  and  not  go  to  church  with 
Protestants,  let  them  alone,  give  them  free  leave  to  exercise  their  Religion 
where  they  please  without  disturbance,  the  place  where  doth  not  import,  they 
not  daring  to  adde  or  diminish  anything  in  the  written  word. 

If  the  Puritans  will  not  use  the  Service  Booke,  Corner  Cap,  Surplesse,  or 
Altar,  nor  bow  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  their  pure  hearts  esteeming  it  Idolatrie, 
let  them  alone,  they  are  great  readers  of  God's  booke,  and  if  they  be  in  errour, 
they  will  sooner  finde  it,  having  liberty  of  conscience,  then  being  oppressed 
with  the  Tyrrany  of  the  High  Commission  Court  or  other  kindes  of  persecu- 
tions which  disquiet  their  consciences  and  troubles  their  patience. 

If  the  Socinians  will  not  subscribe  to  the  39  Articles,  nor  credit  more  than 
by  natural  force  of  their  best  witts  they  can  reach  unto,  let  them  alone,  they 
professe  that  if  any  man  can  give  them  a  better  reason  or  confute  them  by 
the  word  they  are  ready  every  hower  to  change  their  opinions,  of  such  soft 
and  pliable  natures  they  are. 

If  the  Arminians  will  have  Bishops,  Altars,  Lights,  Organs,  hold  Free 
Will,  merit  of  good  workes,  and  divers  other  points  with  Papists,  though  as 
yet  no  sacrifice  with  them  upon  their  Altars,  let  them  alone,  let  them  use 
their  ceremonies  without  sacrifice,  let  every  spirit  praise  the  Lord.     Psal.  150. 

If  the  Papists  will  have  Altars,  Priests,  Sacrifice,  and  ceremonies,  and  the 
Pope  for  their  supreme  head  in  all  Spirituall  affaires,  seeing  they  affirm  so 
confidently,  they  have  had  these  Sixteen  hundred  and  odde  years,  let  them 
alone  with  their  pretended  prescription,  and  let  every  Religion  take  what 
Spirituall  head  they  please,  for  so  they  will,  whether  wee  will  or  no,  but  the 

^■♦Not  that  this  ferment  then  ceased,  but  the  period  here  discussed  ends  at  that 
time. 


EARLY  STUART  PERIOD  57 

matter  imports  not,  so  they  obey  the  King  as  temporall  head,  and  humbly 
submit  to  the  State  and  civill  Lawes,  and  live  quietly  together. 

Let  the  Adamites  Preach  in  vaults  &  caves  as  naked  as  their  nailes,  and 
starve  themselves  with  cold,  they  think  themselves  as  innocent  as  Adam  and 
Eve  v/ere  in  their  nakedness  before  the  fall,  let  them  therefore  alone  till 
some  innocent  Eve  bee  so  curious  as  to  eate  forbidden  fruit,  and  they  will  all 
make  themselves  aprons  of  figge  leaves  perceiving  their  nakednesse. 

Let  the  Family  of  Love  meete  together  in  their  sweet  perfumed  chambers, 
giving  each  their  kisse  of  peace ;  great  pity  it  were  to  hinder  their  mutual 
charity  ;  let  them  alone. 

Lastly,  the  same  we  desire  for  all  professors  of  the  Gospell.  Let  every 
one  abound  in  his  owne  sence.     Rom.  14. 

Even  here  there  is  a  limit  put  upon  the  freedom  sought. 
The  "professors  of  the  Gospell"  alone  are  included.  At  the 
close  of  the  petition  the  terms  used  are  so  general  that  one  is 
led  to  feel  that  entire  liberty  of  conscience  is  desired.  It  is  not 
specifically  stated  so,  yet  I  do  not  feel  justified  in  denying  that 
such  a  conception  was  held.  The  passages  can  speak  for  them- 
selves : 

Let  every  one  therefore  follow  his  owne  Religion  so  he  be  obedient  to  the 
State  and  Temporal  lawes  certainely,  that  which  will  in  time  appeare,  and 
the  professors  of  it  will  be  ashamed,  it  will  perish  and  wither  as  a  flower, 
vanish  as  smoke,  and  passe  as  a  shadow  (p.  7). 

The  matter  therefore  of  so  great  importance  and  consequence,  we  pros- 
trate ;  leaving  to  your  honours  profound  and  deepe  judgments,  humbly  request- 
ing and  imploring  againe  and  againe,  that  for  the  quiet  of  the  state,  for  the 
comfort  of  the  subject,  and  for  the  love  of  truth  you  cause  and  proclaime  a 
tolleration,  that  for  Religion,  none  shall  be  persecuted,  but  every  one  shall 
freely  enjoy  his  conscience  (p.  8). 

This  document,  while  quite  short  and  abounding  in  illustra- 
tion rather  than  more  substantial  argument,  was  an  important 
addition  to  the  literature  upon  the  subject.  What  the  circum- 
stances were  by  which  it  was  inspired  can  only  be  conjectured. ^s 
All  that  is  certain  is  that  in  this  particular  case  some  Brownists 
deviated  from  the  general  trend  of  their  denominational  thought. 

■•s  Stoughton  observes  in  his  first  volume  {Religion  in  Eng.,  p.  356)  that  at  this 
time  two  classes  of  Independents  are  distinctly  visible.  He  says  that :  "  As  some 
Independents,  mostly  the  obscure,  went  further  than  others  in  the  doctrine  of  tolera- 
tion ;  so  some  Independents,  principally  of  the  same  class,  went  further  than  others 
in  the  doctrine  of  voluntaryism."  That  there  was  a  difference  between  some  who 
at  later  time  were  called  Brownists  and  the  Independent  party  appears  in  a  later 
chapter. 


58  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

A  reply  to  this  was  made  without  delay  by  Thomas  Edwards, 
minister  of  the  gospel  in  London.  This  appeared  the  same  year 
(1641)  under  the  title  "Reasons  against  the  Independent  Gov- 
ernment of  Particular  congregations ;  .  .  .  .  together  with  an 
Answer  to  such  reasons  as  are  commonly  alledged  for  such  a 
Toleration."      (B.  M.,  E.  167.) 

Under  the  heading  "  Reason  VIII"  he  argues  in  the  following 
words  : 

These  independent  men  where  they  have. power  (as  in  new  England)  will 
not  give  a  toleration  for  any  other  Ecclesiastical  Government  of  Churches 
but  in  their  owne  way,  they  would  not  suffer  of  other  opinions  in  doctrines 
and  government  to  live  within  the  bounds  of  their  patent,  though  at  the 
further  bounds,  but  have  banished  them.  They  were  sent  to  from  England 
by  some  godly  Ministers  their  brethren  otherwise  approved  by  them,  as 
being  against  Ceremonies,  who  being  in  danger  of  leaving  the  land  sent  to 
know  if  they  might  have  liberty  according  to  their  consciences  to  goe  in  a 
church  way,  something  different  from  theirs,  and  not  in  this  Independent 
Popular  Government ;  to  which  question  you  may  reade  the  Answer,  they 
could  not  grant  any  other  forme  of  government  but  one,  feeling  there  is  but 
one  way  of  Church  government  layd  downe  in  the  Word,  and  that  unchange- 
able, and  therefore  they  cannot  yeeld  to  it.  So  others  of  them  will  not 
tolerate  ;  or  admit  into  fellowship  the  godliest  christians,  unlesse  they  will 
enter  into  Covenant,  professe  their  faith,  submit  to  their  Church  ;  so  that 
these  men  who  now  would  faine  have  a  toleration  in  this  great  Kingdome  will 
not  allow  any  in  a  remote  Plantation,  nor  in  one  of  their  small  particular 
congregations,  for  feare  of  disturbing  the  peace  of  their  Church,  and  yet 
would  have  a  toleration  in  this  Kingdome,  never  caring  to  disturb  the  peace, 
and  good  of  the  three  Kingdomes  which  would  be  hazarded  by  it,  but  thus 
partiall  men  are  (and  you  may  observe  it)  tis  ordinary  for  men  when  they  are 
not  in  place  nor  have  no  power  in  church  or  common-wealth,  and  hold  also 
Doctrines  and  principles  contrary  to  what  is  held  and  established,  then  to 
plead  for  tolerations,  when  as  the  same  persons  coming  to  be  in  place  and  to 
have  power,  wil  not  tolerate  others  to  set  up  any  way  different  from  theirs. 

These  charges  of  Edwards  resulted  in  an  incident  at  that 
time  quite  out  of  the  ordinary.  A  woman  among  the  Congrega- 
tionalists,  Katherine  Chidley  by  name,  entered  into  this  literary 
squabble  at  this  juncture.  ("The  Justification  of  the  Independ- 
ent Churches  of  Christ."  B.  M.,  T.  (7).  Date  1641.)  She 
appeared  as  an  apologist  for  Independency,  but  wished  it  to  be 
understood  that  her  people  do  not  plead   for  any  others  (pp.  20 


EARLY  STUART  PERIOD  5 9 

and  44).  With  astounding  confidence  she  announced  to  Edwards 
that  having  proved  the 

Independent  Government  to  be  Christs  Government ;  I  will  also  prove  in 
my  Answers  to  these  your  following  Reasons,  that  the  Independent  Congre- 
gations performe  Christ's  public  worship,  and  therefore  ought  to  be  tolerated, 
and  maintained  in  the  practise  thereof. 

But  to  stand  for  the  Toleration  of  the  maintenance  of  Heresie,  and 
Schisme,  is  not  the  Toleration  that  we  pleade  for  (as  farre  as  hath  beene  yet 
made  knowne)  but  rather  your  insinuation  ;  for  I  have  declared  unto  you 
already  in  the  driving  backe  of  the  first  scout  of  your  army,  That  God  hath 
provided  a  way  and  meanes  to  purge  every  congregation  of  his  from  all  such 
persons  that  doe  offend,  whether  it  be  in  matters  of  F'aith  or  Order. 

The  author  keeps  up  a  running  conversation  with  Edwards, 
and  so  does  not  connect  her  ideas.  On  this  account  no  theory 
can  be  attributed  to  her,  but  sufficient  expressions  are  given  to 
show  her  to  have  been  in  harmony  with  the  position  generally 
held  by  the  Independents  rather  than  with  the  position  taken  in 
the  Brow^nist  pamphlet  which  aroused  this  discussion.  In  regard 
to  compulsion  in  religion  she  stood  on  the  same  ground  as 
Edwards,  as  she  specifically  indicates  : 

And  therefore  you  did  well,  when  you  admonished  the  Parliament  in  your 
Epistle  to  cast  out  of  the  way  all  stumbling  blockes,  and  to  breake  down  all 
images,  and  crucifixes  ;  and  to  throw  down  all  altars,  and  remove  the  high 
places ;  and  to  break  to  pieces  the  brazen  Serpents  which  have  been  abused 
to  Idolatry  and  Superstition-**  (p.  22). 

She  held  that  toleration  should  be  claimed  only  on  the  ground 
of  worthiness.  Nor  has  she  been  careful  to  give  the  impression 
that  she  expected  anyone  other  than  herself  to  form  the  court 
before  whom  the  claims  of  worth  should  come.  She  asserted  her 
belief  that  the  Anabaptists  and  Jews  were  worthy  of  toleration, 
but  declined  to  plead  their  cause  (p.  44).  In  stating  her  posi- 
tion to  Edwards  she  said  further  : 

In  your  ninth  reason  you  affirme  that  toleration  may  be  demanded,  upon 
the  same  grounds  for  Brownists,  Anabaptists,  and  Familists,  and  others,  who 
professe  it  their  conscience.  To  which  I  answer :  That  seeing  you  plead  for 
them,  I   may  well   hold   my  peace.     But   I   think  the  Familists  will  not  aske 

"*  Masson  says  concerning  her  view:  "Clearly,  whosoever  in  1641  of  the  Parlia- 
ment and  the  people  of  England  heard  a  stinted  doctrine  of  Toleration,  they  heard 
the  full  doctrine  from  Mrs.  Chidley."     {Life  and  Times  of  Milton,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  no.) 


60  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

liberty  for  toleration  if  they  be  as  1  doe.conceive  of  the  Sect  of  the  Libertines 
mention  in  the  Acts.     (P.  36.) 

From  the  "rigid  Puritans"  (Presbyterians)  of  this  period 
has  come  to  us  as  strong  a  statement  of  the  acceptance  of  the 
king's  prerogative  as  is  recorded  in  history.  In  1607  they  put 
out  a  petition  for  toleration.  In  their  protestation  of  orthodoxy 
they  said  : 

We  hold  and  maintain  the  king's  supremacy  in  all  causes,  and  over  all 
persons,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  as  it  was  granted  to  queen  Elizabeth,  and 
explained  in  the  book  of  injunctions  ;  nor  have  any  of  us  been  unwilling  to 
subscribe  and  swear  to  it.  We  believe  it  to  be  the  king's  natural  right  with- 
out a  statute  law,  and  that  the  churches  within  his  dominions  would  sin 
damnably  if  they  did  not  yield  it  to  him.  Nay,  we  believe  that  the  king  can- 
not alienate  it  from  his  crown,  or  transfer  it  to  any  spiritual  potentates  or 
rulers  ;  and  that  it  is  not  tied  to  his  faith  or  Christianity,  but  to  his  very  crown  ; 
so  that  if  he  were  an  infidel  the  supremacy  is  his  due."*' 
Beyond  this  not  even  the  established-church  people  could  well 
go.  There  were  those  who  held  very  loosely  to  Christianity,  if 
at  all,  who  expressed  themselves  with  some  latitude  on  this  as 
on  other  topics.  All  churchmen  subscribed  to  the  Thirty-nine 
Articles,  so  that  if  they  had  favored  liberty  of  conscience,  or 
even  toleration,  the  position  would  have  been  a  contradiction, 
not  an  advocacy. 

•»7Neal,  Vol.  I,  p.  436. 


CHAPTER    III. 

PERIOD    OF    THE    COMMONWEALTH, 

This  period'*^  (1643-60)  includes  the  time  which  elapsed 
from  the  flight  of  King  Charles  I.  from  London  until  the  Restora- 
tion, or  the  crowning  of  Charles  II.  The  execution  of  Charles  I. 
did  not  occur  until  in  January,  1649,  and  during  much  of  the 
preceding  interval  he  held  sway  over  a  large  part  of  England, 
having  his  seat  of  government  at  Oxford.  Parliament,  however, 
under  control  of  the  Presbyterians,  made  laws  and  executed  them 
where  her  army  had  possession.  The  fall  of  the  Parliament  was 
succeeded  by  the  rise  of  the  Protectorate  of  Cromwell  in  the 
year  1653.  This  change  of  government  had  such  a  marked  effect 
upon  the  contest  for  liberty  of  conscience  that  I  shall  subdivide 
and  treat  the  epochs  of  the  Parliament  and  the  Protectorate 
separately. 

I.  Parliament. —  From  1643  ""til  1^53  the  Parliament  exer- 
cised executive  as  well  as  legislative  functions.  The  government 
was  essentially  by  the  people.  Presbyterian  views  were  in  the 
ascendency,  and  the  Presbyterian  became  the  established  church 
of  England,  as  it  long  had  been  the  established  church  of  Scot- 
land. At  this  time,  when  Parliament  was  the  magistrate,  the 
fiercest  struggle  was  taking  place  for  religious  freedom. 

A  glimpse  of  the  conditions  then  existing  is  furnished  by  a 
pamphlet  which  came  out  in  1643,  the  author  of  which  remains 
unidentified.  Its  subject  is  significant.  It  is:  "Liberty  of 
Conscience,  the  Sole  means  to  obtaine  Peace  and  Truth.  Not 
onely  reconciling  His  Majestic  with  His  Subjects,  but  all  chris- 
tian States  and  Princes  to  one  another,  with  the  freest  passage 
for  the  Gospel.  Very  seasonable  and  necessary  in  these  dis- 
tracted  times,  when  most  men  are  weary  of  War,  and  cannot 

t^This  division  into  periods  I  have  made  to  suit  the  nature  of  my  subject. '  I 
have  had  reference  to  the  sequence  of  events  in  London.  While  London  literature 
was  by  no  means  all  that  this  time  afforded,  it  was  there  at  the  seat  of  the  popular 
government  that  this  cause  was  largely  advocated.  The  opposition  of  court  writers  at 
Oxford  had  but  little  effect  upon  the  course  of  events  at  the  metropolis. 

61 


62  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

findc  the  way  to  Peace."  (B.  M.  lOO,  d.  69.)  The  purpose  of 
the  author  was  to  solve  the  question :  How  can  peace  be 
obtained  and  future  wars  prevented  ?  He  inveighs  against  the 
Parliament  for  forcing  religion  upon  the  people  and  taking  away 
the  incentive  to  search  the  Scriptures  as  they  are  commanded. 
He  asks  whether  the  people  shall  be  obliged  to  change  their 
religion  as  frequently  as  the  majority  of  Parliament  changes. 
The  unsettled  state  of  religious  affairs  thus  presented  a  problem 
which  suggested  the  inadequacy  of  the  prevailing  doctrine  of 
magistracy. 

Two  years  later  a  humorous  treatment  of  the  subject  appeared 
under  the  title:  "The  Arraignment  of  Mr.  Persecution,  By  rev- 
erend Younge  Martin  Mar-Priest,  son  to  old  Martin  the  Metra- 
politane."  (B.  M.  108,  b.  52.)  A  quotation  from  the  first  page 
will  explain  itself  and  outline  the  writer's  attitude: 

A  certaine  dreadful!  and  severe  Gentleman,  b}'  name  Gods-vengeance, 
of  the  Towne  of  Impartiality,  in  the  County  of  Just-judgment,  having  a  long 
time  through  the  daily  persuasions  of  his  Kinsman,  Mr.  Long-suffrance  (an 
honest  peaceable  Gentleman,  unwilling  his  enemy  should  perish)  forborne  to 
proceed  against  the  great  Enemie  and  Incendary  of  mankind  Mr.  Persecu- 
tion, according  to  his  iniquity,  at  length  taketh  occasion  at  his  kinsman's 
abused  patience,  forthwith  procures  a  warrant  from  the  Lord  chiefe  Justice, 
Peace-with-all-men  for  the  constable,  Mr.  Reward  of  Tyranny  to  attack  him ; 
who  takes  with  him  two  approved  men  of  the  Parish,  old  Mr.  Woe-full- 
experience,  and  honest  Mr.  Sound-Judgment ;  and  making  strict  search  after 
him  from  Religion  to  Religion,  found  him  at  length  amongst  the  papists,  under 
the  name  of  Mr.  Spanish  Inquisition ;  but  the  subtill  Fox  no  sooner  perceived 
their  Authority,  but  shrunke  out  of  his  Roman  Papall  Robe,  and  presently 
turned  Protestant,'"  clad  with  Episcopall  habit,  under  the  name  of  Mr.  High 
Commission,  but  Constable  Reward  of  Tyranny,  with  old  Woe-full-experi- 
ence, and  honest  Sound-judgment,  being  acquainted  with  his  tricks,  made 
after  him,  whereat  he  cast  off  his  Lawne-sleeves,  Hoode,  Typit,  &c.  and 
forthwith,  least  all  trades  should  faile,  became  a  zealous  Covenanter,  in  the 
godly  shape  of  a  Presbyter,  changing  his  name  into  Classical!  Presbytery  (a 
new  cheat  to  cozen  the  world)  and  then  scholler-like,  as  it  had  been  for  a  good 
fat  Benefice,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  jumpt  out  of  Scotland  into  England, 
and  turned  a  reverand  Synodean,  disguised  with  a  sylogisticall  pair  of 
Breeches. 

■•s  The  term  "  Protestant  "  is  used  in  tracts  of  this  time  to  mean  Episcopalian  or 
established  religion,  when  the  context  does  not  make  plain  another  meaning. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  63 

The  sequel  is  that  Mr.  Persecution  is  finally  arrested  and  put 
on  trial.  Gods-vengeance,  Christian,  Martyrs,  and  Liberty  of 
Conscience  appear  to  testify  against  him,  and  he  is  condemned. 
The  writer  was  remarkably  skilful  and  effective  in  creating  a 
feeling  against  persecution,  and  there  was  sore  need  of  just  such 
attractive  antagonism. 

The  part  taken  by  the  Baptists  s"  in  this  portion  of  the 
struggle  was  a  prominent  one.  Such  a  large  number  expressed 
themselves  during  these  years  that  only  the  most  important 
pamphlets,  together  with  the  evidences  which  indicate  a  general 
sentiment,  can  be  noticed.  This  was  an  epoch  of  popular  dis- 
cussion. The  political  ferment  so  disturbed  the  rulers  that 
silence  could  not  be  enforced  upon  the  common  people. 

"The  Compassionate  Samaritane,"  the  author  of  which  Robert 
Baillie  calls  an  Anabaptist,  was  recognized  as  an  important  docu- 
ment.s'  It  was  directed  to  the  Commons  of  England.  The 
second  edition,  corrected  and  much  enlarged,  appeared  in  1644. 
(B.  M.,  E.  1202  (l).)  The  strong  opposition  it  aroused  among 
the  advocates  of  persecution  manifests  their  opinion  as  to  its 
force.  The  author  states  the  occasion  of  his  putting  forth  this 
treatise  : 

Having  heretofore  met  with  an  Apologeticall  narration  of  Thomas 
Goodwin,  Philip  Nye,  Sydrach  Sympson,  Jeremy  Burroughs,  William  Bridge  ; 
I  did  with  gladness  of  heart  undertake  the  reading  thereof,  expecting  therein 
to  find  such  generall  reasons  for  justification  of  themselves,  to  the  world,  as 
would  have  justified  all  the  Separation,  and  so  have  removed  by  one  dis- 
course those  prejudices  and  misapprehensions  which  even  good  men  have  of 
that  harmlesse  and  well-meaning  sort  of  people  ;  But  finding  contrary  to  that 
expectation  that  their  Apologie  therein  for  themselves,  and  their  Toleration 
was  grounded  rather  upon  a  Remonstrance  of  the  nearnesse  between  them 
and  the  Presbyterian,  being  one  in  doctrine  with  them,  and  very  little  differ- 
ing from  them  in  Discipline,  how  they  have  been  tolerated  by  other  Presbyter 
Churches,  and  indulged  with  greater  priviledges,  then  the  .Separatist,  how 
they  differed  from  the  Separatist,  and  had  cautiously  avoided  roks  and 
shelves  against  which  the  Separatist  had  split  themselves,  confirming  by 
these  words  the  peoples  disesteem  of  Separatists,  suggesting  by  that  phrase 

5° It  was  during  this  period  that  the  Baptist  denomination  was  organized,  as  such; 
therefore  I  shall  make  use  of  the  term  "  Baptist"  from  this  time  on. 

S'  Baillie,  Disuasive  from  the  Errors  of  the  Time,  p.  76.     Newberry  Lib. 


64  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

of  theirs,  as  if  there  were  amongst  the  Separatists  some  dangerous  by  paths 
or  opinions;  which  they  warily  shuned,  though  no  mention  be  made  what 
they  are,  which  is  the  worst  sort  of  calumny.      (Pp.  i  f.) 

The  plea  of  these  Independents  for  a  special  toleration  so 
aroused  the  author  that  in  "The  Compassionate  Samaritane  "  he 
put  forth  that  expression  of  principles  which  he  had  hoped  to 
find  in  the  combined  effort  of  the  Congregationalist  leaders. 
The  work  is  critical  and  discriminating,  and  yet  breathes  a  sym- 
pathy and  brotherly  kindness  rarely  found  in  the  writings  of  this 
period.  The  author  would  leave  out  none  from  the  enjoyment 
of  religious  freedom.  And,  too,  he  recognized  it  a  right  to  be 
demanded  rather  than  a  privilege  to  be  besought.  He  has  not 
admitted  himself  to  be  an  Anabaptist,  but  made  laudatory  state- 
ments which  lead  to  that  inference. 

The  king  I  confesse,  has  reason  to  cry  out  upon  the  Anabaptists,  because 
he  knows  them  to  be  enemies  not  of  Government  ;  but  of  oppression  in 
Government,  and  all  those  who  intend  to  oppress  in  any  manner,  ought,  if 
they  be  true  to  themselves  to  doe  so  too ;  for  the  Anabaptists  are  oppressions 
enemies,  whoever  be  the  oppressours. 

And  whereas  they  say,  they  find  in  bookes,  that  the  Anabaptists  are  enemies 
to  all  Government,  it  were  well  if  they  would  consider  who  wrote  those 
Bookes;  it  may  be  they  were  written  either  by  mistake  or  for  the  same  end 
that  they  repeate  them.  We  can  show  you  books  too,  that  say  the  Parliament 
are  Brownists  &  Anabaptists ;  And  past  all  question,  if  the  King  should 
thrive  in  this  unnaturall  warre  this  Pari,  should  in  their  court  Histories,  not 
only  be  called  anabaptists,  but  branded  also  to  all  posterity  with  that  opinion 
falsely  and  maliciously  fathered  upon  the  Anabaptists,  that  they  were  enemies 
to  government,  and  went  about  to  bring  all  things  into  confusion.  Little 
credite  is  to  be  given  therefore  to  Bookes  in  matter  of  obloquie  and  scandall ; 
but  the  men  and  their  judgments  in  the  time  they  live,  are  to  be  considered. 
....  I  will  adde  one  thing  more  to  the  Brownists  and  Anabaptists  glory; 
that  in  the  times  of  the  Bishops  domineering,  when  many  of  the  Presbyterians 
complyed,  some  to  the  very  top  of  Wrens  Conformity,  and  preached  for 
those  things  they  now  pretend  chiefly  to  reforme  and  the  Independents  fled 
to  places  where  they  might  live  at  ease,  and  enjoy  their  hundred  pounds  a 
yeare,  without  danger  ;  the  Brownist  and  Anabaptist  endured  the  heate  and 
brunt  of  persecution,  and  notwithstanding  the  severall  wayes  of  vexing  them, 
continued  doing  their  duties,  counting  it  the  glory  of  a  christian  to  endure 
tribulation  for  the  name  of  Christ  ;  And  the  times  altering  the  Presbyterian 
soon  come  about  and  the  Independent  comes  over,  to  be  leaders  in  the  Refor- 
mation, when  forgetting  the  constancie  and  integrity  of  those  who  bore  the 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  65 

heat  and  burden  of  the  day  they  hold  the  same  heavy  hand  over  them,  that 
their  fathers  the  Bishops  did. 

These  five  men,  Goodwin,  Nye,  Sympson,  Burroughs,  and 
Bridge,  were  in  exile  on  the  continent  until  Charles  evacuated 
London  and  the  city  was  left  in  the  hands  of  the  separatists. 
Hastening  back  to  their  native  land,  they  became  leading  spirits 
in  the  Independent  movement.  It  is  not  strange  that  in  these 
circumstances  the  Brownists,  mentioned  by  this  author,  though 
essentially  Independents,  should  not,  at  first,  join  heartily  with 
such  leaders.  It  is  evident  that  the  distinction  here  noticed  did 
not  long  continue  to  exist.  These  men  formed  the  nucleus 
around  which  the  whole  party  soon  gathered.  Here  is  recog- 
nized, however,  a  temporary  association  of  the  Brownists  in 
sturdy  resistance  to  conformity.  Notwithstanding  the  tenor  of 
the  passages  cited,  the  work  as  a  whole,  like  that  of  Leonard 
Busher,  is  remarkably  unpartisan.  No  epithets  are  applied.  It 
is  a  calm,  straightforward,  kindly  expression  of  opinion. 

During  the  next  year  (1644)  the  most  comprehensive  docu- 
ment put  forth  by  the  early  Baptists  appeared.  Its  title  is  "The 
Storming  of  AntiChrist  in  his  two  last  and  Strongest  Garrisons, ^^ 
by  C.  Blackwood 53  (B.  M.,  E.  22.  (15)).  These  two  strongest 
garrisons  are  "Compulsion  of  Conscience"  and  "Infants  Bap- 
tisme."  Twenty-nine  reasons  are  given  against  compulsion  of 
conscience.  The  statement  of  them  is  short,  but  compact.  In 
it  the  arguments  are  arrayed,  as  in  a  solid  phalanx,  for  liberty. 
Sixteen  objections  are  answered  in  the  same  methodical  way. 
Though  the  treatment  be  so  large,  religious  motives  alone  seem 
to  have  been  thought  worthy  of  consideration.  No  motives  of 
policy,  not  even  those  arising  from  national  interests,  are  given 

5=^ Crosby  says  "The  two  last  and  Strongest  Garrisons  of  Antichrist"  was 
written  by  Captain  Dean.  He  admits  that  he  knew  but  little  about  Dean,  save  that, 
having  been  a  churchman,  he  became  a  Baptist,  and  instead  of  entering  the  ministry 
he  joined  the  army.  Whether  or  not  there  were  two  treatments  of  this  subject  does 
not  appear.  That  Christopher  Blackwood  wrote  about  it  is  certain."  (Crosby,  Vol. 
I,  pp.  350  f.) 

S3  According  to  Crosby,  Christopher  Blackwood  was  a  minister  of  the  establish- 
ment in  Kent  when  he  came  in  contact  with  Francis  Cornwell,  M.A.,  who  had  been  a 
minister  of  the  establishment,  but  had  accepted  the  doctrines  of  the  Baptists.  By 
him  Blackwood  was  led  to  accept  Baptist  views  also. 


66  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

place.      The   burden  of  the  author's  soul  finds  expression  in  the 
direct  address  of  the  conclusion  : 

Reader  ;  I  shall  desire  thee  seriously  to  ponder  what  hath  been  laid  down  ; 
it  makes  my  heart  bleed  to  see  all  Christendome  the  cockpit  of  the  world,  to 
the  great  scandall  of  Christ  and  Christianity  among  Mahumitans  and  Infidels, 

Very  little  new  thought  or  expression  is  seen  in  Blackwood's 
treatment,  yet  he  added  largely  to  the  force  of  the  contestants 
by  summarizing  and  stating  the  gist  of  previous  discussions. 

"The  Necessity  of  Toleration  in  Matters  of  Religion,"  by  the 
Baptist,  Samuel  Richardson, 54  was  printed  in  1647.  (B.  M.,  E. 
402  (18).)  Here  we  have  the  already  familiar  ideas  set  forth  in 
fresh  forms.  He  states  his  proposition  and  reasons  succinctly, 
as  follows  : 

Religion  ought  to  be  free. 

1.  Because  it  is  God's  way  to  have  Religion  free. 

2.  It  is  God's  Prerogative  to  force  Religion  by  working  Faith  in  mens 
hearts. 

3.  Because,  the  end  why  God  hath  a  Church  is  that  he  might  have  a  peo- 
ple separated  from  others  in  the  world,  to  glorify  him  in  a  holy  conversation 
to  the  convincing  of  those  that  are  out  of  the  church. 

4.  Because  if  there  should  be  an  established  Law  for  all  persons  to  sub- 
mit unto,  it  would  tend  to  the  wounding  of  the  souls  and  undoing  the  bodies 
of  very  many. 

5.  Because  it  is  the  best  for  the  public  peace  to  give  every  one  content. 

Richardson  put  his  thought  into  questions,  which  he  pro- 
pounded effectively.  Seventy  of  these  he  directed  to  "  the  Synod, 
and  all  honest  hearted  and  conscientious  people,  whether  corporal 
punishments  ought  to  be  inflicted  upon  such  as  hold  errors  in 
religion."  A  few  specimens  of  these  will  serve  to  show  their 
pertinence  and  force  : 

I.  Whether  corporal  punishments  can  open  blind  eyes,  and  give  light  to 
dark  understandings  ? 

6.  If  a  father  or  magistrate  have  not  power  to  force  a  virgin  to  marry  one 
she  cannot  love,  whether  they  have  power  to  force  one  where  they  cannot 
believe,  against  the  light  and  checks  of  their  own  consciences  ? 

15.  Whether  Christ  hath  said,  He  will  have  an  unwilling  people  compelled 
to  serve  him  ? 

54  Richardson  is  known  only  as  an  author.  He  put  out  twelve  or  more  works  on 
religious  topics. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  67 

ig.  Whether  he  that  is  not  conformable  to  Christ  may  not  at  the  same 
time  be  a  good  subject  to  the  state,  and  as  profitable  to  it  ? 

22.  Whether  there  be  not  the  same  reason  that  they  [the  magistrates] 
should  be  appointed  by  us,  what  they  shall  believe  and  practise  in  religion, 
as  for  them  to  do  so  to  us ;  seeing  we  can  give  as  good  grounds  for  what  we 
believe  and  practise,  as  they  can  do  for  what  they  would  have,  if  not  better  ? 

29.  Whether  it  be  not  in  vain  for  us  to  have  bibles  m  English,  if,  contrary 
to  our  understanding  of  them,  we  must  believe  as  the  church  believes,  whether 
it  be  right  or  wrong  ? 

58.  Whether  there  be  any  man  that  judgeth  his  own  judgment  erroneous  ? 

By  his  interrogations  Richardson  gently  charged  the  West- 
minster Assembly  with  holding  that  they  had  arrived  at  the  truth 
by  special  revelation.  So,  they  being  infallible,  all  England 
ought  to  receive  their  instruction.  That  consistently  with  this 
they  practiced  intolerance. 

Two  other  names  of  Baptists  were  conspicuous  among  the 
advocates  of  this  cause  in  the  parliamentary  epoch.  They 
were  both  educated  and  prominent  men.  Francis  Cornwell,  M.A., 
wrote  a  tract  on  "Two  Queries  worthy  of  consideration."  These 
queries  were  : 

1 .  Whether  that  ministry  that  preacheth  freely  the  gospel  faith,  that  the 
Lord  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  as  the  Apostle  Peter  did,  be  not  truly  orthodox  ? 

2.  Whether  it  be  agreeable  to  the  Word  of  God  contained  in  the  sacred 
scriptures,  to  silence  or  inhibit  any  ministers  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  preaching 
this  gospel  faith  freely.55 

William  Dell  was  located  in  London.  He  was  held  in  so 
high  esteem  as  to  be  invited  to  preach  before  Parliament,  and  he 
was  bold  enough  to  present  this  cause  in  so  public  a  place.  The 
sermon  was  afterward  printed.  In  1646  he  discussed  the  subject 
in  a  pamphlet  entitled   "Uniformity  Examined  "   (B.  M.,  E.  322 

(12)). 

In  the  midst  of  this  heated  controversy  (1644)  —  for  oppo- 
nents were  as  active  as  advocates  —  an  important  work,  produced 
in  New  England,  was  published  and  circulated  in  England.  It 
was  "The  Bloudy  Tenent  of  Persecution,"  written  by  Roger 
Williams.  Its  form  is  that  of  a  dialogue.  Its  reasons  differ  but 
little  from  those  of  documents  previously  printed,  yet  it  caught 
the  public  eye  more  fully  than  most  of  its  predecessors  had  done. 

55  Crosby,  Vol.  I,  pp.  344  f. 


68  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

It  produced  a  great  deal  of  direct  opposition.  While  John  Cot- 
ton, of  Boston,  was  laboring  assiduously  to  overcome  its  influence, 
many  in  England  considered  it  worth  their  while  to  refute  its  doc- 
trines. 

It  was  in  the  early  part  of  this  rule  of  Parliament  that  what 
is  known  as  the  "  First  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  English  Baptist 
Denomination"  was  formed.  Heretofore  churches  and  individuals 
alone  had  expressed  themselves.  From  this  and  the  later  con- 
fessions it  is  possible  to  determine  what  the  attitude  of  this 
united  people  was.  From  these  we  gain  no  hint  of  the  diligence 
of  their  advocacy  of  their  principles  ;  but  knowing  that  there 
were  many  who  were  assailing  these  doctrines,  it  is  to  be  inferred 
that  a  quiet  acceptance  of  them  would  be  impossible.  This 
first  confession  treats  the  subject  sparingly.  The  thirty-first 
article  reads  thus  : 

All  believers  in  the  time  of  this  life  are  in  a  continual  warfare  and  com- 
bat against  sin,  self,  the  world,  and  the  devil ;  and  are  liable  to  all  manner 
of  afflictions,  tribulations  and  persecutions,  being  predestinated  and  appointed 
thereunto,  and  whatsoever  the  saints  possess  or  enjoy  of  God  spiritually  is  by 
faith  and  outward  and  temporal  things  are  lawfully  enjoyed  by  a  civil  right 
by  them  that  have  no  faith.s'^ 

While  not  elaborated,  this  assertion  is  sweeping.  Even  the 
heretic  is  conceded  the  right  to  enjoy  "outward  and  temporal 
things   ....  by  a  civil  right." 

The  year  following,  1644,  came  out  another  "Confession  of 
those  Churches  which  are  commonly  but  falsely  called  Ana- 
baptist." In  this  they  were  not  even  as  outspoken  as  they  were 
in  the  former  document.  The  forty-ninth  article  treats  the 
subject: 

The  supreme  Magistracie  of  this  Kingdome  we  beleeve  to  be  the  King 
and  Parliament  freely  chosen  by  the  Kingdome  and  that  in  all  those  civill 
Lawes  made  by  them,  with  our  persons,  liberties,  and  estates,  with  all  that  is 
called  ours,  although  we  should  suffer  never  so  much  from  them  in  not 
actively  submitting  to  some  Ecclesiastical  Lawes,  which  might  be  conceived 
by  them  to  be  their  duties  to  establish,  which  we  for  the  present  could  not 
see,  nor  our  conscience  could  submit  unto ;  yet  are  we  bound  to  yield  our 
persons  to  their  pleasures.     (B.  M.,  E.  12  (24).) 

sfi  Crosby,  Vol.  I,  App.,  p.  26. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  69 

From  this  one  is  likely  to  get  an  impression  of  their  sub- 
serviency. Though  admitting  their  separatism,  their  protesta- 
tions of  loyalty  are  so  strong  that  they  have  no  stress  to  lay 
upon  the  right  of  separatism. 

This  slackness  they  attempt  to  atone  for  two  years  later 
(1646).  At  that  time  came  out  the  "Confession  of  the  Seven 
London  Churches."  Having  acknowledged  the  magistrates' 
supreme  authority  in  civil  affairs,  they  proceed  in  Article 
XLVIII  to  express  their  convictions  as  to  ecclesiastical  author- 
rity  in  the  following  sentences  : 

And  concerning  the  worship  of  God,  there  is  but  one  Lawgiver  which  is 
able  to  save  and  to  destroy.  James  iv;i2  which  is  Jesus  Christ,  who  hath 
given  laws  and  rules  sufficient  in  his  word  for  his  worship;  and  for  any  to 
make  more,  were  to  charge  Christ  with  want  of  wisdom  or  faithfulness,  or 
both  in  not  making  laws  enough,  or  not  good  enough  for  his  house ;  surely  it 
is  our  wisdom,  duty  and  privilege  to  observe  Christ's  laws  only.  Psa.  ii,  6,  9, 
10,  12,  So  it  is  the  magistrate's  duty  to  tender  the  liberty  of  men's  con- 
sciences, most  dear  unto  them,  and  without  which  all  other  liberties  will  not 
be  worth  the  naming,  much  less  enjoying,  and  to  protect  all  under  them  from 
all  wrong,  injury,  oppression  and  molestation ;  so  it  is  our  duty  not  to  be 
wanting  in  nothing  which  is  for  their  honor  and  comfort.  And  whatsoever  is 
for  the  well-being  of  the  commonwealth  wherein  we  live,  it  is  our  duty  to  do; 
and  we  believe  it  to  be  our  express  duty  especially  in  matters  of  religion  to 
be  fully  persuaded  in  our  minds  of  the  lawfulness  of  what  we  do,  as  knowing 
whatsoever  is  not  faith  is  sin ;  and  as  we  cannot  do  anything  contrary  to  our 
understandings  and  consciences,  so  neither  can  we  forbear  the  doing  of  that 
which  our  understandings  and  consciences  bind  us  to  do;  and  if  the  magistrate 
should  require  us  to  do  otherwise,  we  are  to  yield  our  persons  in  a  passive  way 
to  their  power,  as  the  saints  of  old  have  done,  James  v,  4.  And  thrice  happy 
shall  he  be  that  shall  lose  his  life  for  witnessing  (though  but  for  the  least  tittle) 
of  the  truth  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  i  Pet  v.  Gal.  v.    (B.  M.,  E.  319  (13).) 

Thus  did  their  views  on  this  subject  gradually  find  expression 
in  the  early  denominational  statements  of  doctrine.  Whether 
the  first  scant  claims  were  occasioned  by  a  lack  of  unanimity  on 
the  part  of  the  delegates  may  never  be  known.  At  any  rate,  we 
must  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  question  was  a  live  one 
during  those  years,  and  could  hardly  have  been  overlooked  by 
authors  of  any  such  confessions. 

But  the  most  vigorous  representation  of  the  Baptists'  belief 
in   this   particular   comes   from   their   antagonist,  Robert  Baillie. 


70  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

He  treated  the  subject  in  his  "  Diswasive  from  the  Errors  of  the 
Time"  (Newberry  Lib.,  pp.  56  f.).  While  Baillie's  hostility 
makes  his  statement  more  or  less  unreliable,  he  has  left  a  most 
interesting  treatment  of  the  situation.      He  says  : 

All  this  Independent  Doctrine  is  brought  from  the  Anabaptists'  schools, 
it  is  one  of  the  articles  of  their  faith  offered  to  the  present  Parliament,  that 
no  laws  ought  to  be  made  by  any  man  upon  earth  about  any  things  which 
concern  the  worship  of  God  ;  That  whosoever  makes  any  rules  for  the  service 
of  God  does  charge  Christ  with  want  of  Wisdom  or  faithfulnesse,  or  both,  in 
not  making  anew  for  his  own  house ;  That  the  great  law  for  matters  of  Religion 
is  this.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  minde  of  the  truth  of 
what  he  believes  without  any  controll  from  any  upon  earth;  That  it  is  the 
Magistrates  duty  to  protect  every  man  in  his  just  liberty  of  conscience,  with- 
out which  all  other  liberties  are  unworthy  the  naming. 

Now  to  put  us  out  of  all  doubt  what  kinde  of  consciences  they  desire  to 
be  protected  by  the  Magastrate  in  their  liberty,  they  are  content  to  come 
down  to  specifications.  At  the  beginning  they  had  not  the  courage  to  require 
a  generall  liberty  for  all  erroneous  consciences,  as  divers  of  the  Inde- 
pendents to  this  day  professe  their  aversenesse  from  an  unlimited  toleration  of 
all  errours;  So  M.  Blackwood  who  first  came  out  to  storm  the  Antichristian 
baptizers  of  children  does  stick  a  little  at  Papists,  and  more  at  blasphemers 
and  atheists ;  and  their  great  Patrons  in  their  debates  for  liberty  except 
errours  against  the  light  of  nature,  albeit  none  which  never  so  evidently 
crosse  the  holy  Scriptures ;  but  M.  Williams  an  Anabaptist  long  before 
Blackwood  makes  it  a  bloudy  Tenet ;  and  others  of  them  proclaim  it  an 
unjust  persecution  to  deny  a  full  liberty  not  only  to  Turks,  Jews  and  most 
heretics,  but  to  idolatrous  Papists  and  any  others  that  may  be  named.  They 
will  not  only  have  these  free  from  any  considerable  punishments,  but  also 
from  the  least  discountenance  or  resentment  pf  their  wickednesse ;  and  lest 
the  grossest  blasphemies  might  have  been  conceived  capable  of  any  civil 
censure ;  behold  they  name  Atheism  itself,  and  exempt  it  expressly  from  the 
hazard  of  all  pain  and  shame. 

This  liberty  they  extend  not  only  to  errours  lockt  up  in  the  breast,  but 
also  when  they  are  openly  by  word  and  writ  professed,  yea  solemnly  preached  ; 
for  they  tell  us  that  the  necessary  and  just  liberty  of  conscience  is  violate, 
and  a  persecution  is  brought  in,  if  a  Jesuit  or  a  Turk  or  a  Jew,  or  a  blasphe- 
mous Atheist  be  hindered  to  go  to  the  most  solemne  places  where  the  greatest 
multitudes  of  weak  and  easily  seduced  spirits  do  converse,  and  there  to  pro- 
claim whatever  in  conscience  they  think  convenient  for  the  propagation  of 
that  errour  which  they  conceive  to  be  truth. 

For  all  this  the  same  men  do  fully  and  freely  grant  unto  us,  that  errour  is 
a  greater  wickednesse  than  any  man  can  easily  conceive,  That  a  false 
Teacher  by  seducing  of  one   soul,  doth  more  real   hurt  than  if  he  should 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMOAUVEALTH  /I 

murther  a  King,  blow  up  a  Parliament,  destroy  the  lives  of  a  whole  nation, 
yea  of  the  whole  world.  Yet  do  they  -^{jl&ad^  for  so  great  a  liberty  to  all 
errours  as  possibly  can  be,  for  they  spoyl  the  Magistrate  of  all  power  in  any- 
thing which  concerns  Religion,  that  he  may  not  with  a  look  of  his  eye 
discourage,  much  lesse  with  his  hand  restrain  the  most  horrible  blasphemer, 
the  most  ravenous  wolf,  to  destroy  the  souls  of  all  his  subjects. 

So  from  all  sources  we  learn  that  this  newly  formed  Baptist 
denomination  followed  closely  in  the  footsteps  of  their  pro- 
genitors, the  Anabaptists.  During  this  epoch  of  controversy, 
when  many  conditions  and  events  led  to  the  supposition  that  the 
demolition  of  the  state  was  at  hand,  this  doctrine,  so  decried  as 
ruinous  to  the  government,  was  sustained  and  advanced.  A 
larger  literary  treatment  is  found  here  than  in  any  previous  time 
of  the  same  length,  but  we  have  arrived  at  a  period  when  these 
enemies  of  infant  baptism  were  not  so  nearly  alone  in  the  ranks 
of  this  invading  army.  Other  forces  joined  actively  in  the 
contest. 

The  attitude  of  the  Independents  was  rapidly  changing  now. 
The  conditions  of  the  time  led  them  to  give  the  subject  greater 
consideration.  Their  party  was  rapidly  increasing  in  numbers 
and  importance.  They  were  fully  convinced  that  they  had  a 
right  to  exist.  They  had  been  given  representation  in  the 
Westminster  Assembly,  and  their  representatives  were  accorded 
a  high  meed  of  praise.  Goodwin,  Nye,  Simpson,  Burroughs,  and 
Bridge,  who  have  been  mentioned  above  as  having  been  in  exile 
on  the  continent,  were  the  moving  spirits  of  Independency.  The 
" Apologetical  Narration"  was  their  united  effort.  This  served 
as  an  introduction  to  their  work  after  their  return  from  the  con- 
tinent. (B.  M.,  E.  80  (7).)  It  was  published  in  1643.  I"  it 
they  claim  that  their  mode  of  church  government  is  as  effective 
as  that  of  the  Presbyterians,  since  in  the  cases  of  both  the 
magistrate  is  necessarily  called  in  "to  assist  and  back  the 
sentence  of  other  churches"  (p.  19).  As  mentioned  by  Baillie, 
they  admitted  to  the  magistrate  more  right  to  interfere  in  religious 
affairs  than  the  Presbyterians  (pp.  19  f.).  This  pamphlet  was 
merely  an  apologetical  document  to  pave  the  way  for  their  toler- 
ation. During  1645  the  denomination  put  forth  several  impor- 
tant treatises  on  toleration. 


72  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

"  Groanes  for  Liberty,"  a  pamphlet  of  thirty-five  pages,  came 
from  the  pen  of  John  Saltmarsh.  (B.  M.,  E.  327  (29).)  While 
petitioning  from  the  Presbyterian  Parliament,  the  author  charged 
the  Presbyterians  "with  being  unwilling  to  accord  to  others  what 
they  had  pled  for  but  four  years  before."  He  held  that  Inde- 
pendents, Anabaptists,  and  Seekers  did  not  differ  enough  from 
Presbyterians  to  warrant  persecution.  He  drew  up  "A  Modell 
or  Short  Draught  of  the  Whole  difference  betwixt  the  Divines  of 
the  Presbytery,  and  them  of  the  other  way  respectively,  to  the 
Magistrate  or  State,  drawn  from  the  Books  and  Practises  of  both 
parties  in  a  Petitionary  way"  (p.  24).  The  respective  petitions 
appear  thus : 

They  of  the  Presbytery  to  the  Magistrate  or  State. 

We  humbly  Petition  ye,  that  Hereticks  and  Schismaticks  (we  believing 
all  that  differ  from  us  to  be  so)  may  have  your  power  inflicted  upon  them, 
whither  to  fines,  imprisonment,  or  banishment,  and  upon  this  condition  ye 
shall  have  what  ye  can  doe,  or  preach,  etc. 

The  Independents  to  the  Magistrate  or  State. 

Wee  humbly  Petition,  that  ye  will  not  hazard  nor  endanger  your  civill 
power  of  the  State  to  help  our  opinions  against  our  Brethren,  for  we  are  not 
Infallible  nor  Apostolicall,  we  see  but  in  part,  and  that  ye  will  not  punish  any 
of  our  Brethren  Presbyterial  or  others,  for  what  they  believe  or  differ  from  us 
in  things  of  outward  order  in  the  Gospel,  and  that  we  may  have  leave  to  pray 
for  ye,  to  pay  tribute  to  ye,  to  fight  for  ye,  and  to  worship  the  Lord  among 
ourselves  peaceably  as  we  believe,  and  to  punish  us  when  we  disturbe  ye 
by  Tumults,  or  trouble  3'our  peace  in  our  way  of  worshiping. 

By  these  comparative  petitions  the  writer  asserted  that  the 
Independents  had  come  to  differ  from  their  Puritan  neighbors. 
The  Independents  had  gotten  far  enough  along  to  concede  to 
the  dominant  Presbyterians  their  right  to  be  unmolested  in  their 
way  of  worship.  They  do  not  go  beyond  this  to  include  other 
sects  under  their  mantle  of  charity.  These  "  Groanes  for  Liberty" 
were  quickly  answered  by  a  certain  "  Ley."  Before  the  year  was 
over  Saltmarsh  retorted  to  this  in  a  work  entitled  "The  Smoke  in 
the  Temple."  This  second  pamphlet  was  simply  an  enlargement 
of  the  first.  Toleration  was  asked  on  the  grounds  of  similarity 
between  Presbyterian  and  Independent  dogmas  in  general.  In 
it  is  no  assertion  of  rights,  and  no  desire  for  a  recognition  of 
religious  freedom  is  made  known. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  73 

From  somewhat  the  same  standpoint  wrote  Jeremiah 
Burroughes  in  his  "Irenicum"of  the  same  year,  a  volume  of  302 
pages.  (B.  M.,  E.  306  (9).)  He  also  sought  to  show  the 
adaptability  of  the  Congregational  government  to  the  successful 
management  of  religious  affairs.  He  further  attempted  to  set 
forth  the  principles  that  cause  divisions  to  arise,  and  to  show  how 
the  evils  may  best  be  avoided.  The  effort  was  an  elaborate  one. 
It  exhibits  great  research  and  careful  thought.  The  author  held 
that  the  principle  "  that  nothing  which  is  conceived  to  be  evill 
is  to  be  suffered  ....  is  a  harsh  and  sowre  principle"  (chap, 
viii).      He  says  that 

the  power  that  God  hath  given  a  magistrate,  is  but  for  a  naturall  help  at 
the  most  and  therefore  it  can  goe  no  farther  then  to  help  us  in  a  naturall 
way,  to  do  what  we  are  able  to  doe  by  a  natural  power ;  when  it  hath  gone  so 
farre,  there  it  must  rest  (p.  71). 

His  seventh  chapter  treats  the  subject:  "Those  who  are  for 
a  congregational  way  doe  not  hold  absolute  liberty  for  all 
religions."     This  thought  is  expressed  repeatedly. 

A  man  may  bring  himselfe  under  both  Civill  and  Ecclesiastical  sword, 
not  onely  for  sinnes  destructive  and  injurious  to  our  brother,  but  for  sinnes 
against  God,  if  they  be  also  against  the  light  of  nature,  as  blasphemy  and 
gross  idolatry  (p.  35). 

Though  such  as  are  not  Christians  cannot  by  violence  be  compelled  to 
professe  Christian  Religion,  yet  notwithstanding  any  plea  of  their  conscience, 
they  may  be  restrained  and  that  by  violence  if  other  means  will  not  do  it. 
from  an  open  blaspheming  Christ,  and  the  Scriptures,  or  doing  any  acts  of 
any  open  dishonor  to  them  (p.  36). 

Suppose  a  man  be  not  wanton,  but  serious,  and  neglects  no  meanes  to 
informe  his  conscience,  and  yet  he  cannot  yeeld.  What  shall  be  done  to  such 
a  man  ?  He  may  be  denied  some  privileges  and  benefits  that  are  granted  to 
others.  I  instance  in  that  opinion  of  some  Anabaptists,  who  deny  the  lawful- 
nesse  of  Warre  :  .  .  .  .  seeing  by  this  error  of  theirs  they  are  made  lesse  use- 
full  in  the  state  then  others,  they  should  not  think  it  much  though  they  be 
denyed  many  priviledges  and  accommodations  that  are  granted  to  others,  who 
venture  their  lives  for  the  preservation  of  the  State. 

Here  Burroughes  has  set  forth  several  ideas,  novel  in  his  day, 
but  destined  to  general  acceptance.  It  was  no  new  conception 
that  the  state  had  a  fund  of  privileges  and  benefits  to  be  bestowed 
upon  favorites,  but  the  withholding  of  them  for  religious  reasons 
was  new.      In  persecution,  shedding  of  blood,  imprisonment,  and 


74  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

fines  are  about  to  give  away  to  political  disabilities.  Burroughes 
may  be  called  the  advance  agent  of  the  persecuting  government 
of  the  later  Stuart  period. 

Philip  Nye,  another  of  the  quintet  of  Independent  leaders, 
carefully  constructed  a  work  at  this  time,  which  is  preserved  to 
us  in  a  reprint  of  1683.  His  subject  was  :  "The  Lawfulness  of 
the  Oath  of  Supremacy,  and  the  power  of  the  King  in  Ecclesi- 
astical Affairs"  (B.  M.  105,  b.  47).  While  Nye  performed  a 
valuable  service  in  advocating  toleration,  he  came  far  short  of 
grasping  the  highest  conceptions.  Readmitted  that  "God  only 
and  the  Civil  Magistrate,  further  our  happiness  by  making  us 
miserable"  (p.  26).  And  again  that  "for  protection  Church- 
Power  neither  judgeth  nor  restraineth  them  that  are  without  ;  it 
is  no  fence  nor  Security  against  the  World.  The  only  Hedg 
about  this  Vineyard,  under  God,  is  the  Sword  of  the  civil 
Magistrate"  (p.  28).  He  did  not  regard  that  the  magistrate's 
sword  had  no  place  in  religious  matters,  since  "the  Judgments  of 
God,  Sword  of  the  Magistrate,  and  the  like  external  administra- 
tions are  helpful  to  the  best  of  men,  who  are  liable  while  a  Body 
of  Sin,  to  as  foul  external  acts  of  sin  as  the  worst  of  Men" 
(p.  29). 

There  is  no  Power  or  Authority  either  in  Church  or  Magistrate  that  doth 
directly  or  immediately  compel  or  enforce  the  soul.  Paines,  Penalties, 
Restraints,  bodily  Punishments  ;  or  what  comes  nearer,  is  more  spiritual,  as 
admonition.  Suspension,  Excommunication,  or  the  like.  When  persons  in 
any  of  these  ways  is  judged  and  censured,  by  the  Church  or  Magistrate  or 
both,  it  hath  its  fruit  and  effect  in  respect  of  Morals  only  in  a  more  remote 
and  circular  way,  as  by  working  upon  the  judgment  and  affections  (p.  32). 

The  Independents  regarded  themselves  at  this  time  as  hold- 
ing a  middle  view  on  this  question  as  well  as  on  others.  The 
controversial  contest  was  raging  fiercely,  and  many  were  occu- 
pying extreme  positions  on  the  subject.  The  Independents  as 
a  body  were  advancing  slowly  and  cautiousl}-.  Robert  Baillie 
mentioned  this  in  his  "  Uiswasive  from  the  Errours  of  the  Time" 
(p.  54).      He  said  : 

The  Authors  of  the  Apologetick  Narration  [cf.  p.  71]  do  boast  of  giving 
to  the  magistrate  more  than  any  other  Protestants  by  their  principles  can  do, 
yet    now   it  seems   they  have  changed    their  note  and  are   returning  to  M. 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  75 

Browne  first  profession  of  liberty  from  the  Magistrate's  sword  in  all  matters 
of  conscience,  for  they  tell  us  that  no  magistrate  may  punish  for  what  the 
church  may  not  censure,  and  they  assume  that  the  church  may  not  censure 
for  any  error  which  is  not  fundamentall,  and  wherein  the  erroneous  person  is 
not  obstinate  and  self  condemned:  Such  at  least  must  be  all  Brownists,  all 
Antipaedobaptists,  most  Antinomians  and  Arminians,  many  Papists  who 
embrace  not  all  the  errours  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  in  these  which  they 
do  maintain  have  never  had  the  means  of  self-conviction ;  against  none  of  all 
these,  or  any  the  like  may  Parliament  make  any  Law,  but  to  all  such  they  are 
obliged  if  they  transgresse  the  limits  of  power,  which  God  and  right  reason 
have  set  unto  them,  to  proclaim  a  full  liberty  without  the  least  restraint.  This 
will  conclude  the  power  of  the  Magistrate  in  matters  of  Religion  in  a  pretty 
narrow  compasse,  yet  it  leaves  him  some  power  to  punish  for  fundamentall 
errours  and  grosse  blasphemies.  Therefore  the  Independents,  at  least  some 
of  their  prime  teachers,  without  any  public  reproof  from  their  fellows  (so 
farre  as  we  know)  are  gone  a  step  further,  to  cut  off  all  idle  and  curious 
debates  concerning  fundamentals;  the  disputes  about  praeter,  super  and 
contra  fundamentalia  are  exceedingly  subtill  and  intricate,  yea  inextricable, 
they  are  more  wise  than  to  involve  themselves  and  others  therein,  so  once  for 
all  they  jump  over  that  ditch  and  avow,  that  for  magistrates  to  controll  any 
man  in  his  grossest  errours.  for  them  to  make  or  execute  any  Law  to  restrain 
any  man's  conscience  and  practise  according  to  conscience  is  but  to  fight 
against  God  and  to  commit  the  monstrous  practise  of  the  old  Gyants  against 
the  heavens  which  they  call  a  Theomachy. 

Thomas  Edwards,  the  so-called  religious  "scavenger  gen- 
eral" of  England,  furnishes  us  with  particulars  which  substan- 
tiate much  that  Baillie  stated.  In  1646  he  published  his  "  Gan- 
grena  ;  or  a  Catalogue  And  Discovery  of  many  of  the  Errours, 
Heresies  &c  vented  and  acted  in  England  in  these  four  last 
years"  (B.  M.,  E.  323  (2)).  An  extract  taken  from  p.  105  will 
best  show  us  his  understanding  of  the  situation  : 

Two  well-affected  citizens  related  to  me  December  18,  That  speaking  with 
an  Independent  Minister  in  this  City,  of  Paul  Best's  damnable  Doctrines 
against  the  Trinity  and  of  his  Blasphemies,  for  which  he  was  imprisoned  :  He 
Answered,  this  imprisonment  would  do  no  good  at  all ;  It  was  Replied,  What 
if  this  Best  or  any  Arrian  would  gather  a  Church  and  vent  his  Opinions,  shall 
the  Magistrate  suffer  them  ?  What  must  be  done  in  this  case  ?  The  Minister 
answered,  cause  him  to  sweat  with  Arguments ;  but  there  was  no  Authorita- 
tive power  under  the  Gospel  to  remedy  it.  These  citizens  objected  that  in 
the  13  of  Deuteronomy,  Whether  such  a  man  should  not  be  punished  as  well 
as  the  false  Prophet  ?  The  Answer  was,  Christ  in  the  Gospel  had  moderated 
thinjjs  ;  Adultery  was  death  under  the  old  Law,  and  yet  Christ  let  the  woman 


76  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

go  away  taken  in  Adultery  ;  and  so  it  was  in  this  case.  One  of  these  Citizens 
told  me  also,  he  spake  of  these  things  to  another  Independent  Minister,  who 
made  an  Answer  to  the  purpose.  That  the  Magistrate  might  not  punish 
such;  adding  The  Magistrate  had  nothing  to  do  in  matters  of  Religion,  but 
in  civil  things  only.  Another  well-affected  Citizen,  and  a  Common  Council 
man  of  good  worth  related  to  me  and  others  that  an  Independent  Minister 
within  a  few  miles  of  London,  one  Mr.  L.  had  said  to  him.  That  men  ought 
not  to  be  troubled  for  their  consciences,  but  Papists  should  be  suffered ;  and 
for  his  part,  if  he  knew  Papists  who  were  at  their  Devotions  of  beads.  Images, 
&c.  he  would  not  have  them  hindered  or  disturbed. 

In  summary,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  this  was  a  transitional 
epoch  with  the  Independents.  That  there  was  a  change,  and 
that  recent,  is  plain  from  Edwards'  citation  of  these  particular 
instances  and  from  his  astonishment  that  even  these  few  should 
be  straying  so  far  from  the  orthodox  position.  This  transition 
makes  it  entirely  impossible  even  approximately  to  locate  or 
describe  the  denominational  situation. 

It  is  in  this  period  that  two  of  the  best-known  English 
authors  appear  as  advocates  in  the  cause  of  liberty.  They  are 
John  Milton  and  Jeremy  Taylor.  Besides  them,  a  prominent 
London  minister  and  writer  occupies  no  insignificant  position. 
Jeremy  Taylor,  at  one  time  bishop  of  Downs,  was  a  devoted  son 
of  the  Episcopalian  church.  John  Goodwin,"  while  twice  the 
minister  of  Coleman  Street  Church,  London,  was  dishonored  by 
the  Episcopalian  establishment  for  his  heretical  doctrines,  and 
may  not  be  classed  with  any  organization.  Milton,  likewise, 
cannot  properly  be  classified. 

"  Areopagitica  ;  a  Speech  of  Mr.  John  Milton  For  the  Lib- 
erty of  Unlicensed  Printing,"  was  produced  in  the  year  1644. 
(B.  M,,  E.  18  (9).)  Though  the  subject  is  narrowed  down  to 
the  expression  of  thought  in  print,  principles  are  discussed  that 
are  applicable  in  the  whole  range  of  conscience.  The  author 
began  by  presenting  arguments  from  the  less  pure  motives  and 
proceeded  to  the  higher.  He  stated  the  order  and  content  of 
his  tract  in  the  following  words  : 

S'Stoughton  says  that  Goodwin  advocated  Independent  principles  in  a  parish 
church,  and  classes  him  with  the  Independents.  By  the  same  kind  of  reasoning  Milton 
is  made  a  Baptist  by  some.     (Vol.  I,  pp.  338  f.) 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  TJ 

I  shall  now  attend  with  such  a  homily,  as  shall  lay  before  ye,  first  the 
inventors  of  it  [the  licensing  of  printing]  to  bee  those  whom  ye  will  be  loath 
to  own  ;  next  what  is  to  be  thought  in  generall  of  reading,  whatever  sort  the 
Books  be  ;  and  that  this  Order  avails  nothing  to  the  suppression  of  scandal- 
ous, seditious,  and  libellous  Books  which  were  mainly  intended  to  be  sup- 
press Last  that  it  will  be  primely  to  the  discouragement  of  all  learning,  and 
the  stop  of  Truth,  not  only  by  disexercising  and  blunting  our  abilities  in  what 
we  know  already,  but  by  hindering  and  cropping  the  discovery  that  might  yet 
be  further  made  both  in  religious  and  civil  Wisdome.     (Pp.  3  f.) 

Keeping  in  mind  that  it  was  Milton's  difficulty  in  getting  his 
work  on  divorce  printed  that  occasioned  this  treatise,  it  must 
also  be  remembered  that  upon  this  subject  he  expressed  some  of 
his  noblest  thoughts.  The  leading  theory  of  persecution  had 
rested  on  the  hypothesis  that  to  remove  the  temptation  to  evil 
was  to  obtain  righteousness.     Says  Milton  : 

They  are  not  skilful  considerers  of  human  things,  who  imagin  to  remove 
sin  by  removing  the  matter  of  sin ;  for,  besides  that  it  is  a  huge  heap 
increasing  under  the  very  act  of  diminishing,  though  some  part  of  it  may 
for  a  time  be  withdrawn  from  persons,  it  cannot  from  all,  in  such  a  uni- 
versal thing  as  books  are  ;  and  when  that  is  done  yet  the  sin  remains  entire 
(pp.  17  f.). 

With  careful  discrimination  he  reminded  the  Presbyterian 
Parliament  that  persecution  was  an  effective  advertising  agency. 
He  spoke  of  the  Presbyterians  thus  : 

Although  their  own  late  arguments  and  defences  against  the  Prelats 
might  remember  them  that  this  obtruding  violence  meets  for  the  most  part 
with  an  event  utterly  opposite  to  the  end  which  it  drives  at ;  instead  of  sup- 
pressing sects  and  schisms,  it  raises  them  and  invests  them  with  a  reputation; 
The  punishing  of  wits  enhances  their  authority  saith  the  Vicount  St.  Albans, 
and  a  forbidden  writing  is  thought  to  be  a  certain  spark  of  truth  that  flies  up 
in  the  faces  of  them  who  seek  to  tread  it  out.  This  order  therefore  may 
prove  a  nursing  mother  to  sects,  but  I  will  easily  shew  how  it  will  be  a  step- 
dame  to  Truth ;  and  first  by  disinabling  us  to  the  maintenance  of  what  is 
known  already.     (P.  26.) 

The  subject  of  heresy  was  so  much  debated  that  his  opinion 
of  it  is  called  forth  : 

A  man  [he  asserts]  may  be  a  heretick  in  the  truth  ;  and  if  he  beleeve 
things  only  because  his  Pastor  says  so,  or  the  Assembly  so  determines  with- 
out having  other  reason,  though  his  belief  be  true,  yet  the  very  truth  he  holds 
becomes  his  heresie  (p.  26). 


78  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

In  his  treatment  of  this  subject  Milton  has  drawn  his  argu- 
ments from  reason,  attempting  to  prove  that  the  printing  of 
books  ought  to  be  allowed  without  receiving  the  sanction  of  a 
public  licenser.  In  the  time  of  the  Protectorate,  fifteen  years 
later,  he  put  out  "  A  Treatise  of  the  Civil  Power  in  Ecclesiasti- 
cal causes  showing  that  it  is  not  lawfull  for  an}-  power  on  earth 
to  compell  in  matters  of  Religion"  (B.  M.  1019,  b.  18).  In 
preference  to  making  separate  statements  of  Milton's  part  in  this 
contest,  I  will  treat  this  later  document  out  of  its  order  in  time. 
It  comes  in  properly  at  the  close  of  the  Protectorate  epoch  and 
is  "Directed  to  the  Parliament  of  the  Commonwealth  of  England 
about  to  assemble."  The  restoration  of  the  Stuarts  followed  soon. 
This  argument  is  far  more  general  and  comprehensive  than 
the  former.  Scripture  has  a  large  place  in  it.  The  author  seeks 
to  inculcate  a  desire  for  freedom  of  thought  in  the  future  gov- 
ernment. His  first  proposition  is  that  "  no  man  or  body  of  men 
in  these  times  can  be  the  infallible  judges  or  determiners  in  mat- 
ters of  religion  to  any  other  men's  consciences  but  their  own  " 
(p.  6).  His  line  of  thought  did  not  differ  so  much  from  that  of 
some  who  preceded  him,  but  in  his  answers  to  objections  he  is 
peculiar.  His  discussions  of  blasphemy  and  heresy  are  full  of 
meaning : 

But  some  are  ready  to  cry  out,  what  shall  be  done  to  blasphemie.  Them 
I  would  first  exhort  not  thus  to  terrify  and  pose  the  people  with  a  Greek 
word ;  but  to  teach  them  better  what  it  is ;  being  a  most  usual  and  common 
word  in  that  language  to  signifie  any  slander,  any  malitious  or  evil  speaking, 
whether  against  God  or  man  or  anything  of  good  belonging ;  blasphemie  or 
evil  speaking  against  God  malitiously,  is  far  from  conscience  in  religion. 
....  Another  Greek  apparition  stands  in  our  way,  heresie  and  heretic  ; 
in  like  manner  also  rail'd  at  to  the  people  as  in  a  tongue  unknown.  They 
should  first  interpret  to  them,  that  heresie,  by  what  it  signifies  in  that  language 
is  no  word  of  evil  note  ;  meaning  only  the  choice  or  following  of  any  opinion 
good  or  bad  in  religion  or  any  other  learning  ;  and  thus  not  only  in  heathen 
authors,  but  in  the  New  Testament  itself  without  censure  or  blame.  Acts 
15:5  &  26:5.  I  Cor.  II  :  18,  19.  (Pp.  i6f.) 
On  this  subject  he  wrote  further  that 

he  then  who  to  his  best  apprehension  follows  the  scripture  though  against 
any  point  of  doctrine  by  the  whole  church  received,  is  not  the  heretic  ;  but 
he  who  follows  the  church  against  his  conscience  and  persuasion  grounded  on 
the  scripture  (p.  2). 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  79 

Later   Milton  specifies    particularly  those  whom   he   regards  as 
heretics,  and  thus,  in  his  estimation,  not  to  be  tolerated  : 

To  protestants  therefore  whose  common  rule  and  touchstone  is  the  scrip- 
ture nothing  can  with  more  conscience,  more  equitie,  nothing  more  protes- 
tantly  be  permitted  than  a  free  and  lawful  debate  at  all  times  by  writing, 
conference  or  disputation  of  what  opinion  soever  disputable  by  scripture  ; 
concluding  that  no  man  in  religion  is  properly  a  heretic  at  this  day,  but  he 
who  maintains  traditions  or  opinions  not  probable  by  scripture,  who  for  aught 
I  know  is  the  papist  only ;  he  is  the  only  heretic,  who  counts  all  heretics  but 
himself  (pp.  22  f.). 

Milton  must  ever  be  considered  a  powerful  advocate  of 
liberty.  It  could  hardly  be  otherwise  when  his  genius  was 
applied  to  this  end.  As  a  political  thinker  he  saw  in  liberty  a 
means  of  furthering  the  interests  of  the  state.  As  a  religionist 
he  rejected  the  Old  Testament  theory  of  persecution,  but  was 
unable  to  find  a  place  for  a  Papist  in  a  Protestant  nation.  He 
conceived  discussion  to  be  good,  but  it  should  be  limited  by  the 
bounds  of  Protestantism. 

The  part  which  Jeremy  Taylor  took  in  this  struggle  was  also 
conspicuous.  The  Presbyterian  regime  left  no  place  for  him  in 
his  bishopric,  so  he  was  in  exile.  He  wrote  as  a  sufferer.  After 
the  Restoration  he  returned  to  persecute  as  a  conqueror. s^ 
Admitting  that  his  "  Liberty  of  Prophesying"  was  of  incalculable 
value  in  forwarding  the  noble  cause,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  why 
so  logical  an  advocate  of  freedom  should  be  intolerant  in  certain 
respects.  His  doctrine  and  practice  were  not  entirely  inconsist- 
ent, for  he  said  :  "  Let  the  prince  and  the  secular  power  have  a 
care  the  commonwealth  be  safe.  For  whether  such  or  such  a 
sect  of  christians  be  to  be  permitted  is  a  question  rather  political 
than  religious."  (P.  225.)  This  idea  he  made  important  by 
reiteration.  In  the  "Epistle  Dedicatory"  he  outlined  his  course 
of  thought,  saying: 

And  first  I  answer  that  whatsoever  is  against  the  foundation  of  faith,  or 
contrary  to  good  life  and  the  laws  of  obedience,  or  destructive  to  human 
society,  and  the  public  and  just  interests  of  bodies  politic,  is  out  of  the  limits 
of  my  question,  and  does  not  pretend  to  compliance  or  toleration. 

58  At  the  Restoration,  when  episcopacy  was  again  enthroned,  Jeremy  Taylor  was 
reinstated  in  office,  and  from  that  time  officiated  as  bishop  of  Downs.  He  was  thus 
a  party  to  and  a  participant  in  the  infamous  persecutions  of  the  later  Stuart  period. 


80  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Secondly,  the  intendment  of  my  discourse  is  that  permissions  should  be 
in  questions  speculative,  indeterminable,  curious,  and  unnecessary ;  and  that 
men  would  not  make  more  necessities  than  God  made,  which  indeed  are  not 
many. 

Having  denied  in  such  manner  that  he  holds  to  anything 
more  extreme  than  a  limited  toleration,  he  then  affirms  his 
belief: 

Only  let  not  men  be  hasty  in  calling  every  disliked  opinion  by  the  name 
of  heresy ;  and  when  they  have  resolved  that  they  will  call  it  so,  let  them  use 
the  erring  person  like  a  brother,  not  beat  him  like  a  dog,  or  convince  him 
with  a  gibbet,  or  vex  him  out  of  his  understanding  and  persuations. 

Bishop  Taylor's  reason  for  granting  the  partial  toleration 
which  he  recommended  is  found  in  the  impossibility  of  deter- 
mining the  exact  truth.  He  did  not  accord  freedom  of  thought 
as  the  right  of  men,  but  as  the  proper  concession  in  considera- 
tion of  the  imperfections  of  revelation  and  the  human  under- 
standing. He  devoted  eight  sections  to  setting  this  forth.  It 
is  a  question,  however,  whether  this  elaborate  and  thoughtful 
discourse,  unideal  as  it  is,  did  not  produce  more  favorable  con- 
sideration of  the  subject  than  many  expressions  of  higher  concep- 
tions. Whether  this  is  true  or  not,  so  great  a  scholar  cannot  be 
justified  in  not  recognizing  an  important  Christian  principle 
which  had  been  set  forth  and  explicated  many  times. 

John  Goodwin,  in  the  "  Hagiomastix,  or  Scourge  of  the  Saints," 
withstands  the  attack  of  the  Presb3^terian  Thomas  Edwards. 
(B.  M.,  E.  374  (i).)  He  had  previously  published  certain 
"Queries"  upon  the  subject,  which  he  admits  contained  "noth- 
ing insinuating  nothing  prejudiciall  in  the  least  either  to  the 
lawfull  authority  of  the  Civill  Magistrate,  or  to  any  orderly,  due 
or  effectuall  course  for  suppressing  of  errours  and  Heresies." 
In  this  rebuttal  of  Edwards  he  advanced  a  strong  argument 
against  persecution.  It  is  primarily  a  polemic  against  Presb}^- 
terianism.  The  opposition  of  Edwards  was  bitter,  and  Goodwin 
responded  with  strong  feeling. 

Again  in  1653  he  presented  to  the  public  his  "Thirty  Queries 
— Whether  the  Civil  Magistrate  stands  bound  by  way  of  Duty  to 
interpose  his  Power  or  Authority  in  Matters  of  Religion,  or 
Worship  of  God"   (B.  M.,  E.  698  (4)).      In  these  last  queries, 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  8 1 

while  no  positive  expression  of  opinion  is  made,  one  can  but 
infer  that  the  author  favored  full  liberty  in  religious  affairs.  His 
questions  are  so  asked  as  to  offer  a  forcible  argument  for  free- 
dom. The  general  effect  of  his  work  at  least  was  to  promote 
liberty  of  conscience.  He  asserted,  however,  that  for  his  part 
*'hee  shall  thinke  it  equall  and  meet  hee  that  shall  doe  presump- 
tuously, and  not  hearken  unto  what  is  by  infallible  Revelation 
from  God  should  be  put  to  death"  (p.  130).  This  has  been 
quoted  by  Thomas  Edwards  with  evident  pleasure. 59  Samuel 
Rutherford,  another  opponent,  interpreted  him  differently, 
saying  "Mr.  John  Goodwine,  who  contendeth  for  a  catholike 
tolleration  of  all,  of  any  religion  whatsoever,  whether  they  erre 
in  fundamentals  or  non-fundamentals."*^ 

Some  further  notice  is  due  to  the  leaders  of  the  opposition. 
They  came  from  the  Presbyterian  hosts.  Thomas  Edwards  was 
easily  first  among  them.  He  created  the  sensations  of  the  time. 
His  delineations  of  the  existing  heresies  must  have  been  start- 
ling to  the  conservatives.  These  effects  he  obtained  by  his 
particular  descriptions.  Beyond  this,  he  was  strong  in  logic  and 
research.  The  "Gangena"  and  "The  Casting  Down  of  the  last 
and  strongest  hold  of  Satan"  are  the  works  in  which  he  treated 
the  subject. 

Adam  Stuart  considered  the  philosophy  of  tolerance  in  his 
"Second  Part  of  the  Duply  to  M.  S.  alias  Two  Brethren."  His 
particular  purpose  was  to  support  the  Presbyterian  attitude  of 
intolerance  toward  Independency.  His  book  is  lengthy,  and,  if 
it  was  as  difficult  to  write  as  it  is  to  read,  was  a  laborious  attempt 
to  sustain  the  government. 

Robert  Baillie  performed  a  work  similar  to  that  of  Edwards. 
He  thought  that  a  statement  of  the  doctrines  of  the  Independ- 
ents, Anabaptists,  and  others  would  be  sufficient  to  condemn 
separatism  entire.  His  principal  work  was  the  "  Diswasive  from 
the  Errours  of  the  Time." 

The  most  learned  and  extensive  treatise  was  of  Scottish 
origin.  Samuel  Rutherford  was  professor  of  divinity  in  the  Uni- 
versity of  St.  Andrews.      From  his  pen  came  "  A  Free  Disputation 

59  Casting  Down  of  the  last  and  strongest  hold  of  Satan,  p.  1 15. 
^  Free  Disputation,  etc.,  p.  64. 


82  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

against  pretended  Liberty  of  Conscience."  Energy  and  acumen 
were  lavished  by  these  opponents  in  their  attempt  to  silence  the 
increasing  sound  of  the  advocates'  voices.  Besides  those  men- 
tioned many  others  were  engaged  in  the  struggle.  Titles  of  the 
works  of  some  of  them  may  be  found  in  the  bibliography. 

2.  Protectorate. —  A  new  element  entered  into  the  contest  at 
this  point.  Heretofore  the  truth  has  been  advanced  by  instruc- 
tion and  plea.  It  was  argued  in  conversation,  urged  by  the 
orator,  and  advocated  by  the  printed  page.  Now  it  is  to  be 
exemplified.  Cromwell  did  not  himself  hold  the  highest  con- 
ceptions on  the  subject,  but  he  put  in  practice  the  views  he  did 
hold.  By  him  the  leading  sects  were  all  tolerated.  The  nation 
was  ready  for  no  such  freedom,  but  the  people  were  forced  to 
concede  each  others'  rights.  The  English  government  was  as 
little  representative  as  at  any  period  in  its  history.  Yet  this 
short  specimen  of  limited  toleration  (for  such  it  was)  led  many 
men  to  see  its  desirability.  The  nation  went  back  heartil}-  to 
the  domination  of  overbearing  kings,  but  never  quite  forgot  the 
days  of  Cromwellian  freedom. 

Full  liberty  of  conscience  was  not  accorded  by  the  Protector, 
nor  even  conceded  by  him  as  a  principle.  In  a  speech  before 
Parliament  in  1654  he  presented  the  following  paragraph: 

And  indeed  the  character,  wherewith  this  spirit  and  principle  is  described 
in  that  place,  is  so  legible  and  visible  that  he  that  runs  may  read  it  to  be 
amongst  us :  for  by  such  the  grace  of  God  is  turned  into  wantonnesse ;  and 
Christ  and  the  Spirit  of  God  made  the  cloak  of  all  villainy  and  spurious 
apprehensions,  and  although  these  things  will  not  be  owned  publicly  as  to 
practise  (they  being  so  abominable  and  odious)  yet  how  this  principle  extends 
itself  and  whence  it  had  its  Rise  makes  me  think  of  a  second  sort  of  men ; 
who  it's  true,  as  I  said  will  not  practise  nor  own  these  things ;  yet  can  tell  the 
magistrate,  that  he  hath  nothing  to  do  with  men  thus  holding,  for  these  are 
matters  of  Conscience  and  Opinion ;  they  are  matters  of  Religion ;  for  what 
hath  the  Magistrate  to  do  with  these  things  ?  he  is  to  look  to  the  outward  man, 
but  not  to  meddle  with  the  inward.  And  truly  it  so  happens  that  though 
these  things  do  break  out  visibly  to  all,  yet  the  principle  wherewith  these 
things  are  carried  on  so  forbids  the  Magistrate  to  meddle  with  them  as  it  hath 
hitherto  kept  the  offenders  from  punishment.  Such  considerations  and  Pre- 
tensions of  Liberty ;  Liberty  of  conscience  and  Liberty  of  Subjects,  two  as 
glorious  things  to  be  contended  for  as  any. God  hath  given  us;  yet  both  these 
abused  for  the  patronizing  of  villainies,  insomuch  as  that  it  hath  been  an 


PERIOD  OF  THE  COMMONWEALTH  83 

ordinary  thing  to  say  and  in  Dispute  to  affirm,  That  it  was  not  in  the  Magis- 
trates power;  he  had  nothing  to  do  with  it ;  no  not  so  much  as  the  printing  a 
Bible  to  the  nation  for  the  use  of  the  people,  lest  it  be  imposed  upon  the  con- 
sciences of  men ;  for  they  must  receive  the  same  Traditionally  and  implicitly 
from  the  power  of  the  Magistrate  if  thus  received.  The  afore  mentioned 
abominations  did  thus  swell  to  this  height  amongst  us. 

This  deliverance  might  cause  one  to  suppose  that  Cromwell 
was  denouncing  the  practice  of  licentiousness  under  the  protec- 
tion of  the  rights  of  conscience,  did  he  not  announce  to  us,  as  the 
extreme  of  these  villainies,  the  opposition  to  putting  forth  a 
national  Bible  for  the  use  of  the  people.  But  probably  the  most 
exact  statement  of  his  view  occurs  in  a  state  paper  of  the  year 
1653,  the  thirt3'-sixth  and  thirty-seventh  articles  of  which  con- 
tain the  following  assertions  : 

That  none  be  compelled  to  conform  to  the  public  religion,  by  penalties 
or  otherwise  ;  but  that  endeavours  be  used  to  win  them  by  sound  doctrine 
and  the  example  of  a  good  conversation. 

That  such  as  profess  faith  in  God  by  Jesus  Christ  though  differing  in  judg- 
ment from  the  doctrine  or  discipline  publicly  held  forth  shall  not  be  restrained 
from,  but  shall  be  protected  in  the  profession  of  their  faith  and  exercise  of 
their  religion,  so  as  they  abuse  not  this  liberty  to  the  civil  injury  of  others, 
and  to  the  actual  disturbance  of  the  public  peace  on  their  part ;  provided 
this  liberty  be  not  extended  to  Popery  or  Prelacy,  or  to  such,  under  a  profes- 
sion of  Christ  as  hold  forth  and  practise  licentiousness. 

These  limitations  in  doctrine  prepare  us  to  hear  of  persecu- 
tions for  conscience  sake  under  the  Protectorate.  Such  a  com- 
plaint comes  to  us  in  a  pamphlet  of  1655,  entitled  "A  True  State 
of  the  Case  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  in  the  Commonwealth  of 
England"  (B.  M.,  E.  848  (12)).  This  is  an  apology  for  the 
life  and  teachings  of  Mr.  John  Biddle,  Unitarian,  who  was 
imprisoned  without  trial,  and  kept  for  several  years  in  the  Poul- 
try-Compter  and  Newgate  prisons. 

"The  Enmite  between  the  Two  Seeds"  (B.  M.,  E.  848  (19)) 
came  out  the  same  year.  It  is  a  biographical  apology  of  John 
Whithead,  a  Northampton  Quaker.  He  with  others  had  been 
arrested  in  1654  and  imprisoned  for  preaching.  So  even  Crom- 
well, though  in  advance  of  many,  did  not  obtain  liberty 
of  conscience  for  his  subjects,  nor  did  he  accept  it  as  a 
doctrine. 


84  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

The  Quakers  come  into  notice  here  as  advocates  of  liberty. 
Their  first  deliverance  came  from  the  pen  of  George  Fox,  in 
1653.  His  language  was  not  very  dignified,  and  his  reasoning 
was  painfully  inconsequential.  He  began  a  movement,  however, 
the  effect  of  which  was  not  insignificant.  His  work  has  for  its 
subject  "A  Warning  to  the  Rulers  of  England  Not  to  usurp 
Dominion  over  the  conscience  nor  to  give  forth  Lawes  contrary 
to  that  in  the  conscience"  (B.  M.,  E.  727  (9)).  A  few  short 
quotations  will  show  the  animus  of  the  tract  and  the  manner  of 
the  writer : 

But  you  that  go  to  make  Lawes  in  your  wils  against  the  Righteous  and 
them  that  act  according  to  that  in  the  conscience,  which  is  according  to  the 
law  of  God,  which  is  perfect  and  forever,  the  Law  of  God  will  hew  you  down, 
which  is  forever  as  it  has  done  many  generacions  before  you. 

Oh,  never  profess  Christ  and  guard  your  church  and  ministry,  as  you  call 
it,  with  a  popish  Antichristian  Law.  Let  this  never  be  mencioned  in  Ages  to 
come  as  it  is  mentioned  in  this  Age,  how  many  have  suffred  by  her  Law,  and 
suffers  now,  and  yet  you  cry  up  the  Gospel,  and  cry  against  such  as  act 
according  to  that  in  the  conscience. 

They  that  fear  the  Lord  have  mutual  Peace  among  themselves,  you  need 
not  make  a  Law  for  them. 

Fox  was  impressed  rather  with  the  particular  claims  of  the 
Quakers  than  with  the  Scripture  demands  for  unlimited  freedom. 
The  agony  of  his  people  aroused  his  wrath.  He  was  not  calm 
enough  to  argue.  The  peculiar  sanctity  of  this  followers  could 
not  allow  him  to  plead  in  humility.  He  could  scarcely  utter 
anything  but  threats. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

LATER    STUART    PERIOD. 

The  Protectorate,  never  altogether  acceptable  to  the  people, 
became  more  and  more  unpopular.  This  revulsion  of  feeling 
became  well-nigh  universal.  To  turn  away  from  the  Cromwell 
family  was  to  turn  back  to  the  Stuart  line.  The  early  Stuarts, 
James  I.  and  Charles  I.,  had  exasperated  the  nation  by  attempt- 
ing to  force  their  claims  of  absurd  prerogatives.  Now  the  later 
Stuarts,  Charles  II.  and  James  II.,  are  to  be  seen  incurring  dis- 
pleasure and  disgust  by  their  arbitrary  and  incompetent  domi- 
nation. The  tyranny  of  this  house  was  first  interrupted  by  a 
rebellion  and  civil  war ;  it  is  next  to  be  terminated  by  a  nearly 
unamimous,  and  therefore  a  bloodless,  revolution. 

When  Charles  II.  was  invited  into  the  kingdom,  and  before 
leaving  the  continent,  he  was  approached  by  the  English  dissent- 
ing bodies.  Through  their  representatives  they  sought  to  secure, 
each  for  itself,  religious  rights  or  privileges  in  harmony  with  its 
ideas  of  toleration.  The  Presb3^terians  were  most  forward  in 
making  their  arrangements  with  Charles.  They  had  become  dis- 
pleased with  Cromwell  because  of  his  tolerant  disposition.  It 
was  within  their  hopes  to  obtain  a  national  church  after  the  Pres- 
byterian form.  They  proposed  that  the  Prayer  Book  should  be 
revised  and  used.      In  all  this  Charles  craftily  encouraged  them. 

The  Baptists  met  the  newly  selected  king  with  propositions. 
These  propositions  were  drawn  up  and  signed  by  ten  prominent 
men,  among  whom  was  John  Sturgion.  In  accordance  with  their 
doctrine,  as  previously  seen,  they  sought  to  obtain  full  liberty  of 
conscience.     Their  third  proposition  reads  : 

Forasmuch  as  it  cannot  be  denied  but  that  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus 
Christ,  by  his  death  and  resurrection  has  purchased  the  liberties  of  his  own 
people,  and  is  thereby  become  their  sole  Lord  and  King,  to  whom,  and  to 
whom  only,  they  owe  obedience  in  things  spiritual ;  we  do  therefore  humbly 
beseech  your  majesty,  that  you  would  engage  your  royal  word  never  to  erect 
or  suffer  to  be  erected,  any  such  tyrranical,  popish,  and  Antichristian  hier- 
archy (episcopal,  presbyterian,  or  by  what  name  soever  it  may  be  called,)  as 

85 


86  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

shall  assume  a  power  or  impose  a  yoke  upon  the  consciences  of  others ;  but 
that  every  one  of  your  majesty's  subjects  may  hereafter  be  left  at  liberty  to 
worship  God  in  such  a  way,  form,  and  manner,  as  shall  appear  to  them  to  be 
agreeable  to  the  mind  and  will  of  Christ,  revealed  in  his  word,  according 
to  that  proportion  or  measure  of  faith  and  knowledge  which  they  have 
received.*' 

In  response  to  these  and  other  approaches,  the  new  govern- 
ment, when  it  was  established  (1661),  called  together  the  Savoy 
Conference.  The  Independents  and  Baptists  took  no  part  in 
this,  for  it  was  soon  seen  to  be  an  attempt  to  form  a  new  national 
creed.  The  prelates  of  the  old  establishment,  having  come  into 
power  again,  offered  to  make  certain  concessions.  T^e  Puritans 
present  accepted  none  of  them.  The  matter  was  then  taken  up 
politically,  and  in  the  next  year  the  "  Act  of  Uniformity"  was 
passed.  This  law  provided  that  every  clergyman  and  school- 
teacher refusing  to  express  his  assent  to  everything  demanded 
in  the  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  on  or  before  August  24,  1662, 
was  to  be  precluded  from  holding  a  benefice,  and  every  occupant 
of  a  benefice  must  have  been  ordained  by  a  bishop,  and  all  must 
renounce  the  "  Solemn  League  and  Covenant."  ^^  This  resulted 
in  the  ejectment  of  two  thousand  ministers  from  their  cures  on 
St.  Bartholomew's  day  (August  24),  which  was  just  before  the 
annual  collection  of  tithes.  Many  of  these  ejected  ministers 
were  Presbyterians,  Independents,  and  Baptists,  appointed  by 
Cromwell. 

During  this  same  year  the  Corporation  Act  was  also  passed 
and  received  the  royal  assent.  It  provided  that  all  who  held 
offices  in  municipal  corporations  must  renounce  the  covenant 
and  take  an  oath  of  non-resistance  to  the  crown  declaring  it 
unlawful  to  bear  arms  against  the  king,  and  that  no  one  should 
hold  municipal  office  who  had  not  received  sacrament  according 
to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England.^3  The  object  of  this  law 
was  to  keep  dissenters,  not  only  out  of  the  offices  of  the  corpora- 
tions, but  also  out  of  the  House  of  Commons,  since  many  of  its 
members  were  elected  by  the  corporations. 

*•  Edward,  Earl  of  Clarendon,  Hist,  of  Rebellion  and  Civil  Wars  in  England, 
Book  XV,  Vol.  VI,  p.  8,  of  Oxford  ed. 

^  Gee  and  Hardy's  Documents,  pp.  600-619.        *3  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  V,  p.  321. 


LATER  STUART  PERIOD  87 

The  Conventicle  Act  and  the  Five  Mile  Act  followed  hard 
after  these  enactments.  The  former  was  passed  in  1664,  to  con- 
tinue in  force  three  years.  It  defined  a  conventicle  as  five  persons 
in  a  gathering,  over  and  above  the  residents  of  the  place.  All 
conventicles  for  worship,  save  those  of  the  established  church, 
were  forbidden.  Severe  fines  were  exacted  of  all  who  were  con- 
victed of  participating  in  such  unlawful  meetings.  In  1670  this 
law,  slightly  modified,  was  reenacted.  The  Five  Mile  Act, 
passed  in  1665,  provided  that  expelled  ministers,  until  they  had 
subscribed  to  the  Act  of  Uniformity  and  taken  oath  that  resistance 
to  the  king  was  unlawful,  should  not  settle  within  five  miles  of 
any  corporate  town  or  get  their  living  by  teaching  in  any  public 
or  private  school,  or  be  within  such  distance  of  a  corporation  or 
borough  except  only  to  pass  along  the  road.''-' 

In  1673  the  Test  Act  was  passed,  by  which  no  person  was 
allowed  to  hold  office  under  the  crown  unless  he  had  taken 
sacrament  according  to  the  rites  of  the  Church  of  England  and 
made  a  declaration  against  transubstantiation.  This  act  was  not 
directed  so  much  against  the  dissenters  in  general  as  against  the 
Duke  of  York,  who  was  heir  to  the  throne  and  was  a  Roman 
Catholic. 

The  partial  enforcement  of  these  laws  caused  great  distress 
among  the  dissenters.  Imprisonments,  fines,  and  confiscations 
were  very  frequent.  Many  who  were  wealthy  became  poor  from 
confiscations.  Many  whose  health  had  been  vigorous  died  from 
imprisonment.  The  government  did  not  revive  the  act  for  the 
burning  of  heretics;  but,  short  of  that,  it  neglected  nothing  that 
would  make  the  lot  of  the  dissenters  miserable.  The  sentiment 
of  the  majority  of  the  people  would  not  longer  endure  the  death 
penalty  for  religious  nonconformity,  but  did  not  revolt  at 
imprisonment  in  unwholesome  jails  which  slowly  effected  the 
same  result  in  many  cases.  Since  the  days  of  Queen  Mary, 
England  had  not  seen  such  persecution.  Nor  did  this  arise  so 
much  from  the  cruelty  of  the  king  as  from  the  determination  of 
the  ministry  to  keep  down  dissent  and  thus  avoid  another  such 
a  revolution  as  arose  in  the  days  of  Charles  I. 

^^  Statutes  of  the  Realm,  V,  p.  575. 


88  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

The  accession  of  James  II.,  whose  desire  was  to  reinstate 
Roman  Catholicism,  effected  a  marked  change  in  the  treatment 
of  the  dissenters.  In  1687  the  king  put  out  his  Declaration  of 
Indulgence,  by  which  he  suspended  all  laws  for  conformity  and 
also  all  tests,  suggesting  that  Parliament  would  doubtless  uphold 
him  when  he  saw  fit  for  it  to  meet.^^ 

Such  were  the  conditions  under  which  the  contest  for  liberty 
of  conscience  was  carried  on  during  this  later  Stuart  period. 
Just  previous  to  it  the  ruling  element  of  the  people  had  been 
favorable  to  a  general  toleration  of  the  sects,  for  dissent  was 
then  in  power.  A  general  revulsion  of  feeling  against  the 
Cromwell  party  let  into  power  the  party  of  the  old  establish- 
ment, whose  hostility  toward  dissenters  was  sharpened  by  its 
sufferings  and  its  desire  to  stifle  such  dangerous  foes. 

In  these  trying  circumstances  the  Baptists  continued  to  prose- 
cute the  cause  of  full  liberty  of  conscience.  In  March  of  the  year 
1660  a  declaration  of  faith  was  put  forth,  "Subscribed  by  certain 
Elders,  Deacons,  and  Brethren  met  in  London,  in  behalf  of  them- 
selves, and  many  others  unto  whom  they  belong,  in  London,  and 
in  several  Counties  of  this  Nation,  who  are  of  the  same  faith  with 
us."  This  document  consisted  of  twenty-five  articles,  was  signed 
by  forty-one  persons,  and  is  stated  to  have  been  "  Owned  and 
approved  by  more  than  twenty  thousand."  Article  XXIV  stands 
as  follows  :      (We  believe) 

That  it  is  the  will  and  mind  of  God  (in  these  Gospel  times)  that  all  men 
should  have  free  liberty  of  their  own  consciences  in  matters  of  Religion  or 
worship,  without  the  least  oppression,  or  persecution,  as  simply  upon  that 
account ;  and  that  for  any  in  authority  otherwise  to  act,  we  confidently 
believe  is  expressly  contrary  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  who  requires  that  whatso- 
ever men  would  that  others  should  do  to  them,  they  should  even  so  do  unto 
others.  Matt.  7.  12.  And  that  the  Tares  and  the  Wheat  should  grow  together 
in  the  field,  (which  is  the  world)  until  the  harvest  (which  is  the  end  of  the 
world)  Mat.  13.  29,  30,  38,  39. 

In  the  next  article  (XXV)  they  admit,  in  explicit  language, 
the  civil  function  of  the  magistrate,  but  refuse  to  obey  when  he 
•'imposes  things  about  matters  of  religion  "  which  conflict  with 
their  consciences.  They  do  not  claim  that  their  views  are  widely 
adopted,  but  say  : 

*s  Gee  and  Hardy's  Doaunents,  pp.  641-4. 


LATER  STUART  PERIOD  89 

These  things  O  ye  sons  and  daughters  of  men  we  verily  believe  to  be  the 
Lord's  will  and  mind,  and  therefore  cannot  but  speak,  and  if  herein  we  differ 
from  many,  yea  from  multitudes,  from  the  learned,  and  the  wise  and  prudent 
of  this  world  we  (with  Peter  and  John)  do  herein  make  our  solemn  and  seri- 
ous appeal  namely,  whether  it  be  right  in  the  sight  of  God  to  hearken  unto 
men  (of  a  contrary  persuasion)  more  than  unto  God.  (B.  M.,  E.  1017  (14).) 
By  this  time  a  considerable  number  had  arisen  to  sustain 
these  unpopular  doctrines.  The  effect  of  an  organization  num- 
bering twenty  thousand,  the  purpose  of  which  was  mostly 
propagation  of  opinion,  will  seldom  be  overestimated.  Admit- 
ting themselves  that  they  were  unlearned,  no  one  would  admit 
that  they  were  not  zealous. 

A  short  pamphlet  was  published  this  same  year  (1660) 
which  attracted  no  little  attention.  Some  persons  in  Kent  were 
arrested  because  of  their  Baptist  views  and  incarcerated  in  the 
"  Gaol  of  Maidstone."  Their  sufferings  brought  out,  not  only  a 
complaint,  but  another  statement  of  opinion.  They  proposed  to 
prove  that  "  no  power  is  given  to  the  magistrates  as  such  to 
impose  anything  in  the  worship  and  service  of  God  on  the  con- 
science." Some  of  the  points  they  attempt  to  make  in  it  are: 
(i)  If  magistrates  have  authority,  all  magistrates,  even  Papists 
and  Turks,  have  such  authority.  (2)  If  they  have  any  such 
power,  it  must  have  been  given  by  Christ,  who  has  all  power  on 
earth  and  in  heaven,  but  the  whole  stream  of  New  Testament 
Scripture  runs  in  another  channel.  (3)  The  apostles,  who  gave 
the  commands  concerning  obeying  the  magistrates,  disobeyed 
their  rulers  in  religious  matters.  All  the  Scriptures  of  the  New 
Testament  were  written  when  the  idolatrous  Romans  ruled. 
(4)  If  magistrates  have  such  power  in  spiritual  matters,  then 
Christians  must  be  actually  obedient,  and  that  for  conscience 
sake,  and  otherwise  they  would  resist  the  ordinance  of  God. 
This  would  remove  all  responsibility  from  men  not  magistrates.^^ 

A  far  more  comprehensive  argument^^  appeared  in  1661.  It 
was  signed  Thomas  Monch,  Joseph  Wright,  George  Hammon, 
William  Jeffery,  Francis  Stanley,  William  Reynolds,  and  Francis 
Smith.  Its  title  is  "Sions  Groans  for  her  Distressed."  The  design 
is  set  forth  in  a  prefatory  address  to  the    "  Courteous   Reader." 

*«Crosby,  Vol.  II,  pp.  22-6.  ^T Ibid.,  pp.  98-144. 


90  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

It  is  for  the  "  general  good,  in  setting  at  libert}-  that  which  God 
made  free,  even  the  conscience."  Mention  is  made  of  the  con- 
troversy that  "  is  now  on  foot  as  to  uniformity  in  worship."  The 
Baptists  before  them,  like  all  others,  had  quite  regularly  appealed 
to  the  magistrates  for  redress  from  their  grievances ;  but  here 
they  begin  to  appeal  to  humanity  in  general.  In  the  introduc- 
tion they  say  : 

Lest  therefore,  those  unchristian  principles  of  persecution  for  conscience 
should  take  root  in  this  nation,  we  have  here  following  written  some  argu- 
ments which  we  humbly  offer  to  all  men,  to  prove  how  contrary  to  the  Gospel 
of  our  Lord  Jesus,  and  to  good  reason,  it  is  for  any  magistrate,  by  outward 
force,  to  impose  anything  in  the  worship  of  God,  on  the  consciences  of  those 
whom  they  govern. 

The  subject  discussed  b}^  the  authors  was  put  in  the  form  of 
a  dilemma:  "If  any  magistrate  under  heaven,  in  the  days  of  the 
Gospel,  hath  power  by  outward  force  to  impose  anything  in  the 
worship  of  God,  on  the  conscience  ;  it  is  given  as  a  magistrate 
only,  or  as  a  christian  so  considered."  Both  horns  of  this 
dilemma  are  denied  and  their  denial  vigorously  sustained,  each 
being  opposed  by  five  arguments.  No  new  treatment  of  the  sub- 
ject is  found  here.  Its  effect,  however,  is  made  plain  by  the 
lengthy  rebuttal  published  by  the  prominent  author,  Henry  Sav- 
age. This  came  out  in  1663,  under  the  heading,  "The  Dew  of 
Hernion,  Which  fell  on  the  Hill  of  Sion,  or  an  Answer  to  a  Book 
entituled  Sions  groans  for  her  distressed  &c."  (Newberry  Lib.). 
Savage  spent  eight  elaborate  sections  in  attempting  to  refute 
what  he  regarded  "  the  Anabaptists  "  to  oppose  in  the  established 
church  doctrines  that  is  not  mentioned  in  the  work  that  called 
forth  his  opposition.  He  inferred  that  the  Miinster  Anabap- 
tists were  on  a  par  with  the  Maidstone  prisoners,  and  that  they 
were  responsible,  at  least  in   part,  for  the  Venner  insurrection.^^ 

**Venner  was  a  fanatical  wine-cooper  who,  during  the  rule  of  Cromwell,  was 
engaged  in  plotting  against  the  government,  and  therefore  was  seized  with 
everal  of  his  confederates.  After  the  Restoration,  he,  with  about  fifty  associates, 
took  violent  possession  of  St.  Paul's  in  the  name  of  King  Jesus,  as  they  said.  The 
first  troop  sent  to  dislodge  them  was  unsuccessful.  On  the  approach  of  the  lord 
mavor's  forces  they  drew  off  into  the  woods  near  Highgate.  Later,  being  nearly 
famished,  they  made  a  desperate  charge  into  the  city  and  were  with  difficulty  over- 
come by  the  city  regiments.  The  Quakers,  Anabaptists,  and  Independents  disowned 
any  sympathy  with  this  fifth  monarchy  outbreak.  (Letter  of  SiR  John  Finch  in 
J.  Stoughton,  Rel.  in  Eng.,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  140  f.) 


LA  TER  S  TUA  R  T  PERIOD  9 1 

In  a  sentence  he  expressed  the  essential  difference  in  hypothesis 
between  Baptists  and  Pedobaptists  :  "And  albeit  these  men  will 
(what  never  any,  but  persons  sprung  from  Anabaptists  did)  reject 
all  examples  and  testimonies  out  of  the  Old  Testament,  unless  it 
serve  their  turn."  This  charge,  while  made  to  sound  unpleasant 
by  the  harshness  of  phraseology  induced  by  rank  hostility,  still 
expresses  the  truth.  These  pamphlets,  like  many  that  came  out 
before  them,  made  clear  that  the  Baptists  supported  their  views 
concerning  Christian  duty  by  arguments  from  the  New  Testament, 
and  not  from  the  Old,  if  in  their  judgment  the  teaching  of  the 
Old  conflicted  with  that  of  the  New.  That  it  was  possible  for 
the  Jewish  revelation  and  the  Christian  revelation  to  give  con- 
tradictory impressions  they  conceded. 

During  this  year  John  Sturgion,  one  of  the  Baptists  who 
represented  the  denomination  in  approaching  Charles  before  he 
had  entered  the  kingdom,  put  out  "A  Plea  for  ToUeration  of 
Opinions  and  Perswasions  in  Matters  of  Religion  Differing  from 
the  Church  of  England"  (B.  M.,  E.  1086  (3);  also  Tracts.) 
Though  given  a  high  place  by  some,  this  effort  is  scarcely  worthy 
of  mention  here.  The  king's  promise  of  toleration,  which  was 
made  at  Breda,  is  recalled  to  his  attention.  Baptists  are  exoner- 
ated from  complicity  in  the  Venner  insurrection.  A  few  of  the 
ordinary  reasons  were  barely  mentioned.  As  weak  as  this  tract 
is,  it  was  reprinted  in  1686,  evidently  appealing  to  someone  as 
a  valuable  contribution  to  the  literature  on  the  subject. 

Various  confessions  of  faith  were  put  forth  by  these  people 
during  the  later  years  of  Stuart  rule.  This  doctrine  is  expressed 
in  various  forms  in  them.  The  confession  of  1677,  which  was 
reiterated  by  the  assembly  of  1689,  says: 

God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience  and  hath  left  it  free  from  the  doc- 
trines and  commandments  of  men  which  are  in  anything  contrary  to  his  word 
or  not  contained  in  it.  So  that  to  believe  such  doctrines,  or  obey  such  com- 
mands out  of  conscience  and  the  requiring  of  an  implicit  faith,  and  absolute 
blind  obedience  is  to  destroy  liberty  and  reason  also.^^ 

In  1678  an  anonymous  publication  came  out  styled  "An 
Orthodox  Creed  or  a  Protestant  Confession  of  faith  &c.  &c. 
Being  an  Essay  to  Unite  &  Confirm   all  true  Protestants  in  the 

«9  Crosby,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  258,  and  App.,  p.  93. 


92  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

fundamental  Articles  of  the  Christian  religion  against  the  Errours 
and  Heresies  of  Rome."  The  times  are  a  commentary  on  the 
purpose  of  this  production.  James  II.  was  on  the  throne.  As 
an  avowed  Roman  Catholic,  he  was  arbitrarily  granting  tolera- 
tion to  both  Catholics  and  dissenters.  Dissenters  were  being 
cajoled  to  make  favors  to  Catholics  appear  consistent.  This 
aroused  Protestants  in  general  to  oppose  the  reentrance  of 
Romanism  into  England.  Article  XXVIII,  upon  the  subject  of 
baptism,  makes  it  plain  that  the  document  was  of  Baptist  origin. 
So  it  appears  that  this  was  given  out  by  the  Baptists  as  a  model 
confession,  by  the  acceptance  of  which  all  Protestants  could 
unite  in  an  intelligent  Christian  faith  which  would  effectually 
resist  Romanism,  without  denying  it  the  right  to  exist.  Its 
statement  concerning  consience  is  found  in  Article  XLVI  : 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  who  is  king  of  kings  and  lord  of  all  by  purchase, 
and  is  judge  of  quick  and  dead  is  only  Lord  of  Conscience;  having  a  peculiar 
right  so  to  be.  He  having  died  for  that  end,  to  take  away  the  guilt,  and  to 
destroy  the  filth  of  sin  that  keeps  the  conscience  of  all  men  in  thraldom  and 
bondage  till  they  are  set  free  by  his  special  grace.  And  therefore  he  would 
not  have  the  consciences  of  men  in  bondage  to  or  imposed  upon  by  any  usur- 
pation, tyranny,  or  command  whatsoever,  contrary  to  his  revealed  will  in  his 
word,  which  is  the  only  rule  he  hath  left  for  the  consciences  of  all  men  to  be 
ruled,  and  regulated  and  guided  by,  through  the  assistance  of  his  spirit.  And 
therefore  the  obedience  to  any  command,  or  decree  that  is  not  revealed  in  or 
consonant  to  his  word  in  the  holy  oracles  of  scripture  is  a  betraying  of  the 
true  liberty  of  conscience.  And  the  requiring  of  an  implicit  faith,  and  an 
absolute  blind  obedience  destroys  liberty  of  conscience,  and  reason  also,  it 
being  repugnant  to  both,  and  that  no  pretended  good  end  whatsoever  by  any 
man  can  make  that  action,  obedience  or  practise,  lawful  and  good  that  is  not 
grounded  in,  or  upon  the  authority  of  holy  scripture  or  right  reason  agree- 
able thereto.7° 

It  is  likely  that  this  last  statement  of  the  doctrine  was 
softened  in  order  to  make  more  probable  its  acceptance  bv 
Pedobaptist  thinkers.  Such  considerations,  however,  are  not 
present  to  account  for  the  increasing  tameness  of  the  arguments 
advanced.  The  Baptists  did  not  fall  away  from  the  high  ideal 
which  they  had  held  so  long,  but  circumstances  combined  to 
decrease  their  ardor  in  its  propagation.  Prominent  among  these 
was  the  license  accorded  them  by  James.    They  did  not  approve 

7° Crosby,  Vol.  Ill,  second  App.,  No.  i. 


LA  7ER  S  TUA  R  T  PERIOD  9  3 

of  the  king's  motives  nor  of  the  mere  toleration  accorded  them, 
yet  the  fact  that  they  took  advantage  of  it  diminished  the  force 
of  whatever  arguments  they  might  make. 

This  is  the  period  when  the  noted  Baptist,  John  Bunyan, 
was  most  conspicuous.  We  are  concerned  to  know  his  attitude 
on  this  question,  the  solution  of  which  so  much  affected  him 
personally.  Though  he  did  not  enter  the  lists  as  a  champion 
of  liberty  of  conscience,  he  expressed  himself  upon  the  sub- 
ject.7'  In  a  "Relation  of  the  Imprisonment  of  Mr.  John 
Bunyan,"  by  himself,  he  speaks  as  follows  concerning  his  trial 
in  court : 

I  said,  shew  me  the  place  in  the  epistles  where  the  Common-Prayer-Book 
is  written,  or  one  text  of  Scripture  that  commands  me  to  read  it  and  I  will 
use  it.  But  yet  notwithstanding,  said  I,  they  that  have  a  mind  to  use  it,  they 
have  their  liberty,  that  is,  I  would  not  keep  them  from  it ;  but  for  our  part  we 
can  pray  to  God  without  it. 

Bunyan  has  also  appended  a  note  to  this  "  Relation  "  in  which 
he  declares  that  "  it  is  not  the  spirit  of  a  christian  to  persecute 
any  for  their  religion,  but  to  pity  them  ;  and  if  they  will  to 
instruct  them."  Bunyan's  disposition  to  evangelize  rather  than 
to  indoctrinate  explains  his  silent  acceptance  of  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment. 

The  position  taken  by  the  Independents  in  this  part  of  the 
contest  may  be  found  succinctly  stated  in  "A  Declaration  of  the 
Faith  and  Order,  Owned  and  practised  in  the  Congregational 
Churches  in  England."  ^^  The  twenty-fourth  chapter  treats  the 
function  of  the  civil  magistrate.  Their  stand  for  toleration  is 
taken  in  the  following  sentence  : 

Although  the  Magistrate  is  bound  to  encourage,  promote,  and  protect 
the  professors  and  profession  of  the  Gospel,  and  to  manage  and  order  civil 
administrations  in  a  due  subserviency  to  the  interest  of  Christ  in  the  world, 
and  to  that  end  to  take  care  that  men  of  corrupt  mindes  and  conversations  do 
not  licentiously  publish  and  divulge  Blasphemies  and  Errors,  in  their  own 
nature  subverting  the  faith,  and  inevitably  destroying  the  souls  of  them  that 
receive  them ;  yet  in  such  differences  about  the  doctrine  of  the  Gospel,  or 
ways  of  the  worship  of  God,  as  may  befal  men  exercising  a  good  conscience, 
manifesting  it  in  their  conversation,  and  holding  the  foundation,  not  disturbing 

7'  Bunyan's  Works. 

'^'Savoy,  1658.     Printed  London,  1659.     (Dr.  W.'s  lib.) 


94  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

others  in  their  ways  of  worship  that  differ  from  them  ;  there  is  no  warrant  for 
the  Magistrate  under  the  Gospel  to  abridge  them  of  their  liberty. 

This  toleration,  then,  was  broad  enough  to  include  Christians 
(not  Jews  or  Turks)  who  quietly  held  what  they  (the  Congrega- 
tionalists)  regarded  as  the  foundation  of  the  faith,  provided  they 
did  not  propagate  ideas  considered  by  the  Congregationalists  as 
blasphemies  and  errors  in  their  own  nature.  They  could  toler- 
ate such  differences  about  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  or  ways  of 
the  worship  of  God,  as  were  held  by  those  whom  they  credited 
with  exercising  a  good  conscience. 

The  most  notable  commentator  upon  this  view  was  the  cele- 
brated Dr.  John  Owen,  of  whom  it  is  said  that  "with  massive 
and  sinewy  brain  and  exhaustive  learning"  he  "so  built  up  the 
principles  of  Congregationalism  that  if  all  the  works  on  that  sub- 
ject which  have  since  been  written  were  destroyed,  the  Congre- 
gational churches  of  England  could  stand  behind  his  treatises  as 
behind  an  impregnable  rampart."  He  is  also  characterized  as 
"the  greatest  champion  of  Independent  principles  that  ever 
adorned  the  denomination.""  This  man  was  also  regarded  as  a 
great  champion  of  toleration. ^^  His  greatness  and  the  force  of 
his  advocacy  of  his  theory  on  this  subject  must  be  admitted.  Owen 
was  a  conspicuous  figure  in  the  public  life  of  the  Commonwealth 
period,  but  his  first  important  treatment  of  toleration  came  from 

73SKEATS  AND  MlALL,  j^wA  of  Free  Churches  in  Eng.,  pp.  6l  and  71. 

74  In  the  Goold  edition  of  Owen's  Works  is  an  undiscriminating  tribute  to  Owen 
for  his  advocacy  of  toleration.  "  It  is  enough  to  say  of  Owen  and  his  party,  that  in 
their  attachment  to  these  principles  they  were  greatly  in  advance  of  their  contempo- 
raries ;  and  that  the  singular  praise  was  theirs,  of  having  been  equally  zealous  for  tol- 
eration when  their  party  had  risen  to  power,  as  when  they  were  a  weak  and  persecuted 
sect.  And  when  we  consider  the  auspicious  juncture  at  which  Owen  gave  forth  his 
sentiments  on  this  momentous  subject,  his  influence  over  that  great  religious  party  of 
which  he  was  long  the  chief  ornament  and  ruling  spirit,  as  well  as  the  deference 
shown  to  him  by  the  political  leaders  and  patriots  of  the  age,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say,, 
that  when  the  names  of  Jeremy  Taylor  and  Milton,  and  Vane  and  Locke  are  men- 
tioned, that  of  John  Owen  must  not  be  forgotten,  as  one  of  the  most  signal  of  those 
who  helped  to  fan  and  quicken,  if  not  to  kindle,  in  England  that  flame  which,  '  by 
God's  help  shall  never  go  out;'  who  casting  abroad  their  thoughts  on  the  public  mind 
when  it  was  in  a  state  of  fusion  and  impressibility,  became  its  preceptors  on  the  rights 
of  conscience,  and  have  contributed  to  make  the  principles  of  religious  freedom  in 
England  familiar,  omnipresent,  and  beneficent  as  the  light  or  the  air."  (Andrew 
Thompson,  Life  of  Owen,  p.  xli.) 


LA  l^ER  STUA R  T  PERIOD  9 5 

the  press  in  the  year  1667.  Two,  and  possibly  three,  pamphlets 
came  from  his  hand  that  year.  His  "Peace  Offering  in  an 
Apology  and  Humble  Plea  for  Indulgence  and  Liberty  of  Con- 
science "  is  distinctly  a  denominational  tract."  The  purity  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Congregationalists  is  the  ground  on  which 
he  rests  his  claim  for  their  indulgence.  He  urges  that  differ- 
ences have  always  existed  in  the  thought  of  Christians,  and  that 
therefore  in  their  lesser  differences  they  should  be  endured. 
The  dissenters,  he  says,  are  the  industrial  backbone  of  the  king- 
dom, and  their  injury  is  the  injury  of  the  kingdom.  As  a 
denominational  apology  this  tract  is  all  that  could  be  desired  ; 
but  to  regard  it  as  treating  liberty  of  conscience  is  absurd.  The 
gist  of  the  inferences  and  arguments  it  contains  may  be  summed 
up  in  a  sentence  :  We  have  no  legal  right  to  exist  as  a  denomina- 
tion, but  we  are  harmless,  therefore  do  not  disturb  us.^^ 

A  much  higher  conception  is  found  in  "Indulgence  and  Tol- 
eration Considered.""  In  it  Owen  contends  that  the  forcing  of 
conscience  by  censures  and  punishments  cannot  be  sustained  by 
appeal  to  examples  or  precepts  of  either  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment ;  that  it  is  not  expedient  to  force  conscience  ;  and  that 
liberty  of  conscience  is  practicable  for  national  affairs. 

The  third  work,  which  probably  appeared  the  same  year  ( 1667) , 
has  for  its  title  "  The  Grounds  and  Reasons  On  which  Protestant 
Dissenters  Desire  Their  Liberty."  ^s  fhe  grounds  and  reasons 
set  forth  are  : 

1.  We  are  Protestants. 

2.  We  are  ready  to  make  the  renunciation  of  popish  principles  required 
by  law. 

3.  "  We  own  and  acknowledge  the  power  of  the  king  or  supreme  magistrate 
in  this  nation  as  it  is  declared  in  the  37th  article  of  religion." 

"B.  M.  4139  d. ;  also  Owen's  Works,  Goold  ed.,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  541-73- 
7*  "  And  what  are  We,  that  Public  Disturbances  should  be  feared  from  Us  ?  Nee 
pondera  rerum  nee  momenta  sumus  ;  By  what  way  or  means,  were  we  never  so  desir- 
ous, could  we  contribute  anything  thereunto  ?  What  designs  are  we  capable  of  ? 
What  interest  have  we  to  pursue,  What  Assistance  to  expect  or  look  after?  What 
title  to  pretend  ?  What  hopes  of  success  ?  What  Reward  of  any  hazard  to  be  under- 
gone ?  We  have  no  Form  of  Government,  Civil  or  Ecclesiastical,  to  impose  on  the 
nation."     (Owen,  Peace  Offering,  p.  8.     B.  M.  4139  d.) 

77  Works,  Vol.  XIII,  pp.  518-40.  78  B.  M.  105,  f.  20  (18),  and  Works. 


96  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Two  reasons  are  here  given  as  a  plea  for  liberty.  One  is  that 
they  will  not  concede  liberty  to  the  Roman  Catholics,  and  the 
other  is  that  they  hold  the  national  doctrine  on  the  subject  of 
the  magistrate.  This  unqualified  acceptance  of  the  thirty-seventh 
article  of  religion  makes  quite  plain  the  views  of  the  Independ- 
ents in  general  and  Owen  in  particular.  This  article,  established 
in  I  571,  is  well  worth  our  consideration.      It  reads  : 

The  Queene's  Majestic  hath  the  cheefe  power  in  this  Realme  of  Englande, 
and  other  her  dominions,  unto  whom  the  cheefe  government  of  all  estates  of 
this  Realme,  whether  they  be  Ecclesiastical  or  civile,  in  all  causes  doth 
appartein,  and  is  not,  nor  ought  to  be  subject  to  any  forraigne  jurisdiction. 

Where  we  attribute  to  the  Queenes  Majestie  the  cheefe  government,  by 
which  titles  we  understande  the  mindes  of  some  slaunderous  folkes  to  be 
offended :  we  give  not  to  our  princes  the  ministering  of  God's  word,  or  the 
sacraments,  the  which  thing  the  Injunctions  also  lately  set  forth  by  Elizabeth 
our  Queene,  doth  most  plainlye  testifye  :  But  that  only  prerogative  which  we 
see  to  have  ben  geven  alwayes  to  all  godly  Princes  in  holy  Scriptures  by  God 
himselfe,  that  is,  that  they  should  rule  all  estates  and  degrees  committed  to 
their  charge  by  God  whether  they  be  Ecclesiastical  or  Temporall,  and  restrain 
with  the  civill  sworde  the  stubborne  and  evylldoers. 

The  bishop  of  Rome  hath  no  jurisdiction  in  this  Realme  of  England.  The 
lawes  of  the  Realme  may  punish  Christian  men  with  death  for  heynous  and 
greevous  offences. 

It  is  lawfull  for  christian  men,  at  the  commaundment  of  the  Magistrate, 
to  weare  weapons,  and  serve  in  the  warres.^' 

This  article,  given  here  entire,  early  became  the  Church  of 
England's  warrant  for  persecution.  In  ecclesiastical  affairs,  as 
well  as  civil,  the  sword  is  assigned  its  part  to  play.  To  approve 
of  this  article  was  to  sanction  England's  main  statute  of  oppres- 
sion. 

Two  years  later,  in  1669,  Dr.  Owen  put  forth  another  tract 
upon  this  subject. ^°  In  size  it  is  quite  pretentious,  making  a 
volume  of  409  pages.  That  the  author's  thought  had  suffered  no 
material  change  in  the  intervening  time  may  be  indicated  by  one 
quotation  : 

To  take  care  of  the  church  and  religion,  that  it  receive  no  detriment,  by 
all  the  ways  and  means  appointed  by  God  and  useful  thereunto,  is  the  duty 
of  magistrates  ;  but  it  is  also,  antecedently  to  their  actings  unto  this  purpose, 

79  Hardwick,  Hist,  of  the  Articles,  App.  VII,  p.  313. 

^  Truth  and  Innocence  Vindicated.     B.  M.  4 1 03,  b. 


LATER  STUART  PERIOD  97 

to  discern  aright  which  is  the  church  whereunto  this  promise  is  made  ;  without 
which  they  cannot  duly  discharge  their  trust  nor  fulfil  the  promise  itself 
(p.  402). 

In  other  words,  Owen  maintains  that  there  is  one  true  church, 
that  it  should  be  cared  for  by  the  state,  that  the  king  must 
decide  which  this  church  is,  and  that  unless  he  makes  the  right 
selection  he  cannot  discharge  his  duty.  Such  a  mixture  of  pre- 
rogative and  responsibility  certainly  would  have  made  the  magis- 
trate's position  a  delicate  one. 

These  are  the  documents  upon  which  must  rest  the  claim 
that  John  Owen  was  one  of  the  great  advocates  of  tolerance  and 
liberty  of  conscience.  As  an  exponent  of  his  denomination  he 
was  truly  illustrious,  but  his  conceptions  on  this  topic  were  far 
from  ideal. 

In  this  period  the  Quakers  enter  prominently  into  public 
view  for  the  first  time.  George  Fox  has  already  been  seen  to 
break  forth  in  a  denunciation  of  persecution  and  the  persecuting 
party.  This  was  only  the  beginning  of  a  fusillade  which  was  to 
continue  for  more  than  a  score  of  years.  On  the  accession  of 
Charles  II.  Fox  greeted  him  with  a  pamphlet  "Concerning 
Religion  and  the  Spirit  of  Persecution."  In  it  Fox  instructed  the 
king  how  to  act  in  religious  matters.  No  argument  is  attempted, 
but  a  succinct  statement  of  duty  is  presented.  Among  other 
recommendations  is  one  for  unlimited  toleration.^'  Six  Quakers, 
Fox  being  the  first  among  them,  appealed  to  the  king  and  Par- 
liament in  1661.  As  taxpayers  they  desired  to  have  "as  much 
liberty  as  Stage-Players  and  Montebanks,  and  Ballad-Singers, 
who  meet  together  in  hundreds  to  the  Dishonor  of  God."  (B.  M. 
4152,  c.  21,  p.  7.)  Only  a  few  of  the  most  ordinary  arguments 
against  persecution  are  mentioned.  After  this  several  tracts 
appeared.  In  them  Fox  displayed  great  perseverance  and 
determination.  He  seldom  rose  above  the  distress  and  needs  of 
his  particular  flock,  though  he  held  to  the  theory  of  liberty  of 
conscience.  He  was  not  a  logician.  He  lacked  force,  order, 
and   fulness.      In  these  writings  he  displays  less  than  ordinary 

«"'A  Noble  Salutation  And  a  Faithful  Greeting  Unto  Thee  Charles  Stuart,"  etc. 
B.  M.,— 4. 


98  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

acumen.  His  position  in  this  contest  was  that  of  an  adherent 
who  possessed  a  power  of  leadership  by  which  he  so  trained  his 
followers  that  they  became  better  advocates  than  he. 

One  of  these  followers  was  Edw.  Borroughs.  In  his  "Just 
and  Righteous  Plea"  he  attempted  to  show  that  persecution  was 
an  enemy  to  the  king's  person  and  authority.  His  ten  reasons 
for  this  are  : 

1.  It  eats  out  the  affections  of  many  good  and  sober  people. 

2.  It  is  contrary  to  the  trust  God  hath  reposed  in  him. 

3.  Its  partiality  may  cause  heart  burnings,  envyings,  strifes  and  murmur- 
ings  among  his  subjects. 

4.  It  provokes  God  to  be  offended  with  him. 

5.  It  provokes  the  Lord  not  only  to  anger  but  to  judgment. 

6.  It  makes  righteous  men  sad  and  weakens  their  affections. 

7.  It  makes  the  King  dishonorable  in  the  sight  of  all. 

8.  Persecution  is  of  the  Devil. 

Q.  It  follows  the  example  of  Pharaoh,  Ahab,  Herod,  Nero,  etc. 
10.  Its  end  will  be  the  King's  misery  and  destruction.^^ 
While  such  argument  is  nowadays  generally  held   to  be  puerile, 
there  was  a  large  class  to  whom  this  appealed  on  its  publication. 
That  it  was  exclusively  religious  in  character  would  cause  it  to 
be  regarded  favorably  by  many. 

As  early  as  1662  William  Smith  published  a  short  treatise, 
giving  most  of  his  space  to  an  apology  for  the  Quakers,  but 
expressing  himself  as  favoring  liberty  to  all.  His  most  telling 
point  is  that,  since  all  admit  the  doctrine  of  the  gospel,  all  must 
admit  toleration,  since  the  gospel  cannot  effect  its  purpose  with- 
out toleration.      (B.  M.  224,  a.  42(5)-) 

By  far  the  most  able  advocate  among  the  Quakers  signed  his 
name  P.  (W.),  and  without  doubt  was  William  Penn.  His 
pamphlet  was  written  while  he  was  a  prisoner  in  Newgate.  The 
subject  is  "The  Great  Case  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  Once 
more  Briefly  Debated  &  Defended  by  the  Authority  of  Reason, 
Scripture  and  Antiquity"    (B.  M.,  T.  407  (5)).      He  says: 

The  present  cause  of  this  Address  is  to  solicite  a  Conversion  of  that 
power  to  our  Relief  which  hitherto  hath  been  employed  to  our  depression  ; 
that  after  this  large  experience  of  our  Innocency,  and  long  since  expired 
Apprenticeship  of  cruel    Sufferings,  you  will   be  pleased  to  cancel   all   our 

8»B.  M.  4151,  aa.  57. 


LATER  STUART  PERIOD  99 

bonds  and  give  us  a  Possession  of  those  Freedoms  to  which  we  are  entituled 
by  English  Birthright. 

A  bare  outline  of  the   discussion  will  reveal  many  of  its  excel- 
lences : 

CHAPTER    I. 

God's  prerogative  is  invaded  by  imposition,  restraint,  and  persecution. 

1.  They  robb  God  of  his  Right  of  Creation. 

2.  They  suppose  infallibility  in  man,  contrary  to  Protestant  principles. 

3.  Man  attributes  all  to  himself,  and  takes  God's  share  and  his  own  too. 

4.  It  defeats  the  work  of  his  grace. 

5.  They  assume  the  Judgment  Seat. 

CHAPTER    II. 

They  overturn  the  Christian  Religion, 

1.  In  the  Nature  of  it,  which  is  meekness. 

2.  In  the  Practise  of  it,  which  is  suffering. 

3.  In  the  Promotion  of  it,  since  all  further  discoveries  are  prohibited. 

4.  In  the  Rewards  of  it,  which  are  eternal. 

CHAPTER    III. 

They  oppose  the  plainest  testimonies  of  Divine  Writ  that  can  be,  which 
condemn  all  force  upon  conscience. 

CHAPTER    IV. 

They  are  enemies  to  the  privilege  of  nature; 

1.  As  rendering  some  more  and  others  less  than  men. 

2.  As  subverting  the  universal  Good  that  is  God's  gift  to  men. 

3.  As  destroying  all  natural  affection. 

CHAPTER     V. 

They  carry  a  contradiction  to  government ; 

1.  In  the  Nature  of  it,  which  is  Justice. 

2.  In  the  Execution  of  it,  which  is  Prudence. 

3.  In  the  End  of  it,  which  is  Felicity. 

In  the  sixth  and  last  chapter  examples  of  toleration  are 
given  and  testimonies  of  authorities  cited.  The  tract  was  drawn 
out  by  the  oppression  occasioned  by  the  Conventicle  Act,  and 
its  application  is  limited  to  the  Quakers,  but  its  arguments  are 
general.  A  real  liberty  of  conscience  was  the  author's  ideal. 
The  work  shows  insight  and  ability.  The  propositions  were 
freshly  put,  the  arguments   concise,  and  the  proofs  ample.     This 


100  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

is  by  far  the  greatest  product  which  our  subject  has  extracted 
from  Quaker  talent.^3 

The  most  interesting  feature  of  this  part  of  the  contest  was 
the  opposition  of  the  established-church  party.  Here  is  the 
beginning  of  their  transitional  period.  There  were  many  still  to 
sustain  persecution  with  great  warmth.  Unanimity,  however, 
was  past.  The  persecutions  undergone  by  the  churchmen  during 
the  Commonwealth  period  tended  to  overthrow  their  hypothesis 
that  might  and  right  were  necessarily  in  cooperation  in  England. 
Jeremy  Taylor's  advanced  position  doubtless  affected  them 
somewhat.  But  the  circumstances  which  aroused  his  mind  prob- 
ably came  in  course  of  time  to  work  on  many  others  as  on  him. 

An  anonymous  document  of  some  significance  was  printed 
at  Oxford  in  1670.  It  was  directed  against  dissenters,  and  con- 
sisted of  quotations  from  them  in  opposition  to  liberty.  Its 
lengthy  title  suggests  its  motive  and  outlines  its  thought.  It  is  : 
"Toleration  Disproved  and  Condemned  By  the  Authority  and 
convincing  Reasons  of  I.  That  Wise  and  Learned  King  James 
and  his  Privy-Councill.  Anno  Reg.  2d.  II.  The  Honourable 
Commons  Assembled  in  this  present  Parliament  in  their  votes 
&c.  1662.  III.  The  Presbyterian  Ministers  in  the  city  of  Lon- 
don met  at  Sion-CoUedge  December  18,  1645-  IV.  Twenty 
eminent  Divines  (most  (if  not  all)  of  them  Members  of  the  late 
Assembly)  in  their  Sermons  before  the  two  Houses  of  Parlia- 
ment on  Solemn  Occasions,  Faithfully  Collected  by  a  very  Mod- 
erate Hand,  and  humbly  Presented  to  the  Serious  Consideration 

83 "  Confession  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  Commonly  Called  Quakers  (A.  D.  1675). 
The  Fourteenth  Proposition  Concerning  the  Power  of  the  Civil  Magistrate,  m  matters 
purely  religious  and  pertaming  to  the  conscience. 

Since  God  hath  assumed  to  himself  the  power  and  dominion  of  the  conscience, 
who  alone  can  rightly  instruct  and  govern  it,  therefore  it  is  not  lawful  for  anywhat-so- 
ever,  by  virtue  of  any  authority  or  principality  they  bear  in  the  government  of  this 
world,  to  force  the  consciences  of  others;  and  therefore  all  killing,  famishing,  fining 
imprisoning  and  other  such  things,  which  men  are  afflicted  with,  for  the  alone  exercise 
of  their  conscience  or  difference  in  worship  or  opinion  proceedeth  from  the  spirit  of 
Cain,  the  murderer  and  is  contrary  to  the  truth ;  provided  always  that  no  man  under 
pretense  of  conscience,  prejudice  his  neighbor  in  his  life  or  estate,  or  do  any  thing 
destructive  to,  or  inconsistent  with  human  society;  in  which  case  the  law  is  for  the 
transgressor,  and  justice  to  be  administered  upon  all  without  respect  of  persons." 
(SCHAFF.  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  797  f-) 


LA  TER  STUA R  T  PERIOD  1 0 1 

of  all  Dissenting  Parties."  (B.  M.  4106  c.)  The  testimony 
of  the  wise  and  learned  James  was  not  of  value  to  anyone  in 
this  conflict,  since  it  could  be  cited  in  favor  of  both  sides,  but 
the  quotations  from  the  ministers  were  pertinent.  The  Presby- 
terians were  hopeful  at  first  that  theirs  would  become  the  estab- 
lished church. ^t  Upon  being  disappointed  in  this,  they  sought 
again  to  be  tolerated  The  point  of  this  pamphlet  was  that 
those  who  did  not  believe  in  toleration  ought  not  to  seek  it  for 
themselves.  The  names  of  the  ministers  whose  testimonies  are 
recited  are  of  interest,  since  they  quite  definitely  locate  in  this 
contest  some  conspicuous  characters.  They  are :  Dr.  Cornelius 
Burgesse,  Mr.  John  Ward,  Mr.  William  Good,  Mr.  Thomas 
Thorowgood,  Mr.  Humphrey  Hardwick,  Mr.  Arthur  Salway,  Mr. 
William  Reyner,  Mr.  Thomas  Case,  Mr.  John  Lightfoot,  Mr. 
Thomas  Watson,  Mr.  George  Hughes,  Mr.  Edmund  Calamy, 
Mr.  Richard  Baxter,  Mr.  Thomas  Horton,  Mr.  Lazarus  Seaman, 
Mr.  Matthew  Newcomen,  Mr.  Richard  Vines,  Mr.  Simeon 
Ash,  Mr.  James  Cranford,  Mr.  Thomas  Edwards.  By  presenting 
the  bare  quotations  of  these  preachers  the  editor  supposed  that 
he  had  an  irresistible  argument  as  against  their  later  pleas  for 
privileges.  The  compilation  exists  as  a  perpetual  memorial  of 
the  opposition  of  early  Presbyterians  to  the  right  of  private 
judgment.  To  us  it  is  a  notable  instance  of  extreme  weakness 
in  arguments  from  testimony. 

A  pretentious  tract  (350  pages)  also  came  out  that  year  in 
favor  of  conformity.  It  was  "  Toleration  Discussed  in  two  Dia- 
loges,  I.  Betwixt  a  Conformist  and  a  Non-conformist;  Laying 
open  the  impiety  and  danger  of  a  General  Liberty,  H.  Betwixt 
a  Presbyterian  and  an  Independent;  Concluding,  upon  an  Impar- 
tial Examination   of  their  Respective   Practises  and  Opinions  in 

^■^The  London  Presbyterian  ministers  who  went  as  a  deputation  to  the  king 
before  his  entrance  into  the  country  are  said  to  have  adopted  an  intolerant  policy 
They  labored  with  Charles  to  get  a  promise  from  him  that  he  would  not  make  use  of 
the  Common  Prayer,  even  in  his  private  chapel.  At  any  rate,  they  would  have  it 
altered  by  his  chaplains.  The  king  replied  that,  since  they  wanted  liberty,  they  should 
accord  the  same  to  him.  They  objected  to  allowing  the  surplice  to  be  worn,  but  he 
said  that  while  giving  so  much  liberty  to  others  he  must  be  left  untrammeled.  {Cf. 
Stoughton,  III,  pp.  68  f.) 


102  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Favour  of  the  Independent"  (B.  M.  874,  d.  24).  The  writer  rep- 
resented the  nonconformists  as  advocating  a  limited  toleration, 
which,  he  said,  "would  give  abundant  satisfaction"  (p.  16). 
The  conformist  in  the  dialogue  insisted  that  no  toleration  should 
be  admitted,  except  with  the  allowance  of  the  chief  magistrate 
(sec.  iii).  The  victory  in  this  debate  is  ascribed  to  the  con- 
formist. In  the  second  part  the  Presbyterian  is  condemned  rather 
than  the  Independent,  but  neither  is  given  much  praise. 

Henry  Savage  (noticed  above)  was  probably  the  most  effect- 
ive advocate  of  intolerance  at  that  time.  His  "  Dew  of  Hermon," 
which  was  directed  against  the  "Anabaptists,"  is  a  clear  and 
pointed  document.  It  refutes  the  proposition  that,  if  magistrates 
as  such  have  authority  over  the  conscience,  all  magistrates,  in 
all  nations,  have  the  same  power.  Savage  claims  that  it  was  not 
so,  for  all  have  delivered  into  their  hands  either  the  book  of 
nature  or  the  book  of  the  law  of  the  Old  Testament  to  guide 
in  ruling.  The  Turk,  in  obeying  the  Alcoran,  does  not  obey  the 
book  of  nature.  The  king  of  Spain,  having  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  with  their  law,  set  up  idolatry  contrary  to  their  con- 
tents. They  are,  nevertheless,  to  be  obeyed  passively.  He 
asserts  that  Paul  acknowledged  the  right  of  Felix  and  Festus  to 
judge  him  concerning  an  article  of  faith,  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead.  He  admits  that  human  "laws  cannot  properly  be  said  to 
bind  the  conscience  by  the  sole  authority  of  the  Law-givers,"  but 
he  maintains  that  "they  do  it  partly  by  the  equity  of  the  Laws, 
every  man  being  obliged  to  promote  that  which  conduceth  to  the 
public  good."  Savage  held,  with  the  Independents,  that  the 
magistrate  was  not  to  propagate  the  gospel.  He  was,  rather,  to 
be  the  "defender  of  the  faith." 

The  position  of  the  church  was  sustained  by  a  popular  and 
learned  work  of  Dr.  John  Nalson,  "The  True  Liberty  and 
Dominion  of  Conscience  Vindicated  from  the  Usurpations  and 
Abuses  of  Opinion  and  Persuasion"  (B.  M.  1113,  h-  i-  Second 
edition,  1678) .  He  concerns  himself  to  make  hair-splitting  dis- 
tinctions between  persuasions,  opinions,  and  conscience.  Though 
a  laboriously  critical  work  from  the  standpoint  of  language,  it 
deals  in  wholesale  commendation  and  condemnation.     The  church 


LA  TER  S TUA R  T  PERIOD  I O  3 

is  wholly  right  and  the  dissenters  wholly  wrong.  This  lavish 
expenditure  of  ability  indicates  the  waning  power  of  the  cause 
sustained.  In  the  palmy  days  of  Episcopal  intolerance  under 
Queen  Elizabeth  there  was  no  call  for  such  strenuous  exertions 
to  confuse  the  minds  of  the  people. 

An  incident  occurred  in  1682  which  brings  to  our  notice  the 
change  taking  place  in  public  sentiment.  Dr.  Nath.  Bisbie 
preached  a  sermon  on  "Prosecution  no  Persecution."  As  it 
aroused  no  little  interest,  it  was  printed.  In  the  "  Epistle  Dedi- 
catory "  Dr.  Bisbie  explains  the  conditions  as  he  understands 
them.     He  says : 

When  this  Sermon  was  first  preached  it  was  vulgarly  said,  that  it  was  boldly 
done ;  but  (if  I  mistake  not)  it  is  much  more  bold  and  daring  to  cause  it  to 
be  made  publick.  Speed  as  it  may  I  am  sufficiently  pleased  that  in  this 
juncture  of  Affairs  (When  Allegiance  is  made  a  crime,  and  Conformity  little 
better  than  Infidelity)  I  have  Patrons  able  and  ready  to  assert  the  interest  of 
them  both.    (Dr.  W.'s  Lib.) 

This  hostility  to  conformity  was  largely  effected  by  the  oppres- 
sion under  Charles  II.  Five  years  later,  when  James  II.  offered 
to  indulge  all  dissent,  a  great  agitation  was  raised  against  it,  on 
the  ground  that  the  king's  motive  was  thus  to  introduce  Roman 
Catholicism.  Liberty  coming  to  be  a  political  issue,  its  advocacy 
is  soon  found  in  another  sphere. 

A  division  in  the  ranks  of  the  church  is  the  mark  of  advance- 
ment for  this  period.  In  1668  a  tract  was  published  in  London 
on  the  subject  "Liberty  of  Conscience  the  Magistrate's  Interest" 
(B.  M.  4103,  e.).  It  was  signed  "By  a  Protestant."  While 
there  is  no  positive  proof  that  the  author  was  a  churchman,  the 
signature  is  nearly  such  proof.  The  term  "Protestant"  was  the 
churchman's  usual  designation  for  himself.  It  might  be  made 
use  of  by  a  dissenter,  but  it  would  be  only  when  he  sought  to 
identify  his  interests  with  the  churchman  as  against  the  Roman 
Catholic.  Such  could  hardly  have  been  the  case  at  this  date. 
Dissenter-s  also  were  quite  free  to  sign  their  names  during  this 
period.  Churchmen,  unless  protected  by  their  patrons,  did  not 
yet  feel  free  to  attack  their  church  system.  In  the  character 
of  the  argument  we   find   something  new.      It  is  an  interesting 


104  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

addition  to  the  literature  on  the  subject.  As  a  councilor,  rather 
than  a  partisan,  he  wrote  : 

'Tis  no  way  prudent  for  a  Prince  when  his  subjects  consist  of  many  dif- 
fering Judgments,  to  resolve  to  have  them  all  of  one  mind  (a  thing  impracti- 
cable) or  else  to  be  their  declared  Enemy  and  Persecutor  (p.  3). 

Take  it  for  Truth  which  is  commonly  affirmed,  That  all  such  for  whom 
Liberty  is  at  any  time  desired,  are  men  full  of  Faction  and  Full  of  Error ;  for 
the  first  'tis  certain,  Persecution  will  not  only  continue,  but  foment  such  Fac- 
tion and  give  it  plausible  pretense  to  justifie  itself  upon,  whereas  a  Liberty 
granted  in  matters  of  conscience,  will  wholly  win  such  men  to  a  due  and 
hearty  Obedience,  as  finding  themselves  in  a  posture  they  cannot  expect  to 
mend,  or  else  will  lay  them  open  to  such  apparent  justice  for  punishment, 
and  bring  them  under  such  a  general  contempt,  as  shall  leave  them  stripped 
of  all  pretensions,  and  render  them  wholly  inconsiderable  (p.  4). 

'Tis  most  prudent  in  a  state  to  give  Liberty,  where  there  is  least  power  to 
demand  it,  those  may  be  gained  by  it,  that  may  prove  dangerous  in  forcing 
it  (p.  6). 

This  [persecution]  has  Three  ill  effects  alwayes  attending  it.  First,  It 
disobliges  the  best  sort  of  men  in  every  party,  whom  the  state  should  most 
cherish  and  engage  ;  whatever  is  said  to  the  contrary,  those  that  are  the 
truest  subjects  to  the  Great  King  will  be  found  the  best  to  his  vicegerents 
here ;  .  .  .  .  Secondly,  All  standers-by,  the  generality  of  a  nation  looking  on, 
must  needs  be  dissatisfied,  to  see  a  plain  honest  man,  upright  and  punctual 
in  all  his  dealings  among  men,  punished  merely  for  his  conscience  to  God  ; 
....  Thirdly,  though  it  be  a  secret,  yet  'tis  a  very  sure  and  certain  way  of 
bringing  National  Judgments  upon  a  People.    (P.  7.) 

Our  "Protestant"  also  urged  that  the  number  of  dissenters  in 
England  was  too  great  to  make  persecution  advisable.  He  also 
asserted  that  without  liberty  of  conscience  the  country  would 
never  have  a  flourishing  trade.  He  maintained  that  the  giving 
of  liberty  would  be  the  safest  way  of  preventing  a  return  to 
popery.  The  argument  is  all  from  policy.  Dissatisfaction  is  not 
felt,  because  the  honest,  upright,  and  punctual  man  is  punished 
for  his  conscience  to  God,  but,  since  the  people  looking  on  were 
dissatisfied,  the  nation  was  troubled.  The  standpoint  of  the 
writer  is  national,  rather  than  individual.  The  nation  must  pros- 
per at  whatever  expense  to  the  individual. 

As  the  prudent  "Protestant"  exemplified  his  policy  by  con- 
cealing his  identity,  so  a  little  later  Samuel  Bolde,  vicar  of 
Shapwicke,  in   Dorsetshire,  showed  how  fitting  was  his  name  by 


LA  TER  STUART  PERIOD  1 0 5 

printing  a  "Sermon  against  Persecution"  (B.  M.  4106,  b.).  He 
publisiied  it  for  the  "Consideration  of  Violent  and  Headstrong 
Men,  as  well  as  to  put  a  stop  to  false  reports."  In  his  "To  the 
Reader"  he  paid  a  high  tribute  to  the  dissenters  of  his  acquain- 
tance. He  asserted  that  many  narrow  churchmen  were  unreason- 
able in  their  demands  for  conformity.  The  proposition  of  his 
discourse  is  that  "Wicked,  Unregenerate  Men,  always  have  bin, 
and  still  are  for  persecuting  Holy,  Righteous,  Spiritual  Men" 
(p.  4).  He  branded  persecutors  as  superstitious,  proud,  covet- 
ous, and  profligate  (p.  8).  Bolde  used  strong  language.  His 
sharpness  caused  him  trouble.  Before  the  year  was  passed  he 
entered  his  "  Plea  for  Moderation  towards  Dissenters ;  Occa- 
sioned by  the  Grand  Juries  Presenting  the  Sermon  Against  Per- 
secution, at  the  last  Assizes  holden  at  Sherburn  in  Dorsetshire" 
(B.  M.  698,  i.  (3)).  In  this  half  confirmation  and  half  retrac- 
tion of  his  vigorous  sermon  he  supported  his  position  by  argu- 
ments from  authority.  Here  he  used  more  moderate  language. 
But  in  neither  of  these  publications  did  he  outline  his  ideal  of 
toleration.  He  was  a  destructive  critic  rather  than  a  constructive 
advocate. 

A  series  of  pamphlets  written  at  about  this  time  were  styled 
"The  Conformists  Plea  for  the  Nonconformist." ^5  in  these 
a  limited  toleration  is  advocated  on  the  ground  that  it  is  a  good 
policy.  The  increasing  fear  of  the  rise  of  Papists  into  power 
probably  had  no  small  amount  to  do  in  producing  this  gracious 
demeanor  of  the  conformists.  The  dissenters  were  seen  to  hold 
the  balance  of  power.  Their  friendship  was  cultivated  assidu- 
ously by  the  adherents  of  James  on  one  side  and  by  the  estab- 
lishment on  the  other. 

James  II.'s  arbitrary  "Declaration  of  Indulgence"  (1687)  niade 
toleration  a  political  issue.  The  government  party  hastened  to 
gain  all  to  acquiescence  in  the  king's  action.  This  sudden  change 
from  persecution  to  toleration  caused  the  courtiers  considerable 
embarrassment.  The  situation  gave  occasion  to  a  humorous 
tract  called  "  Heraclitus  Ridens  Redivivus,  or  a  Dialogue  between 
Harry  and    Roger   concerning  the  Times."  ^^     It   is   a   dialogue 

*s  Tracts  on  Succession,  1 680-82.     Newberry  Lib. 

^^  Eng.  Hist.  Tracts,  1686-9.     Newberry  Lib. 


I06  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

between  two  courtiers  and  a  dissenter.  The  courtiers  laughingly 
speak  to  each  other  of  their  change  of  front.  They  mention 
the  fine  distinctions  to  which  they  resort  to  clear  themselves 
from  the  charge  of  inconsistency.  The  dissenter,  from  whom 
they  conceal  their  amusement,  disapproves  of  this  toleration  on 
the  ground  that  it  would  merely  introduce  a  worse  intolerance 
with  the  Catholics. 

A  specimen  argument  proceeding  from  the  royal  party  is 
found  in  a  tract  which  contains  some  "  Advice  to  Freeholders 
and  other  electors  of  Members  to  serve  in  Parliament,  in  Rela- 
tion to  the  Penal  Laws  and  Tests." ^^  The  line  of  thought  is 
characteristic  and  suggestive  : 

It  having  pleased  the  King  to  emit  a  gracious  Declaration  for  Liberty  of 
Conscience,  I  present  some  of  the   motives  inclining  me  to  exert  myself  for 
the  election   of  such  members,  as  may  concur  with  his  Majesty  in   giving 
sanction  to  this  Indulgence. 
They  are 

1.  To  set  conscience  free  from  Church-Tyranny. 

2.  The  King  having  taken  it  up  it  is  safe. 

3.  I  am  pleased  with  the  King ;  This  pleases  the  King,  therefore  I  would 
please  the  King  in  this. 

Further  the  adviser  says  : 

I  am  well  satisfied  of  the  truth  and  stability  of  the  following  positions : 
I,  Liberty  of  Conscience  is  consonant  to  the  Gospel.  2.  To  grant  this  liberty, 
is  the  true  interest  of  both  Prince  and  People 

(i)  For  it  contributes  to  the  glory  of  the  King. 

(2)  For  it  contributes  to  the  Peace  of  the  People. 

(3)  For  it  contributes  to  the  Union  between  King  and  People, 

(4)  The  unreasonableness  of  constraining  conscience. 

(5)  The  mischiefs  of  compulsion  in  spoiling  trade,  depopulating  the 
country  and  discourageing  strangers.  Lastly,  The  ill  success  which  force  in 
religious  matters  has  always  been  attended  with.  It  has  made  hypocrites, 
but  never  sincere  converts. 

In  answer  to  objectors  this  writer  says: 

They  who  oppose  Liberty  of  Conscience  say  that  (i)  Their  opposition 
arises  from  a  dread  of  popery.  Concerning  this.  His  Majesty's  declaration 
is  the  best  security.  Let  the  church  consider  that  the  King  only  takes  from 
her  the  power  of  doing  mischief.  (2)  They  for  whom  Liberty  of  Conscience 
is  desired  are  factious.  Yes,  but  persecution  foments  faction. 
^1  Eng.  Hist.  Tracts,  1 686-9.     Newberry  Lib. 


LA  TER  STUART  PERIOD  I O ^ 

In  application  of  all  this  he  particularizes  as  follows: 

The  Gentlemen  of  the  established  Church  may  please  to  remember  that 
their  Church  when  brought  under,  pleaded  for  liberty  and  thankfully  accepted 
it  from  the  late  usurpers.  Shall  the  Fanatics  with  alacrity  come  to  the 
King's  interest  and  will  the  Church  of  England  appear  sullen,  soure  and 
averse  thereto  ? 

It  thus  appears  that  this  subject  was  kept  in  the  public  mind 
throughout  the  later  Stuart  period.  Oppression  under  Charles 
II.  and  fear  of  popery  under  James  II.  gave  an  intense  interest 
to  all  discussions  of  it.  A  great  increase  in  the  number  of  advo- 
cates is  apparent  {cf.  Appendix) .  The  character  of  the  argumicnts 
differs  much  from  that  of  previous  periods.  The  practical  has 
become  more  prominent.  We  shall  next  see  the  application  of 
ihe  principle  to  constitutional  government. 

NOTES. 
APPENDIX    TO    CHAPTER     IV. 

An  epitome  of  several  other  pamphlets  from  this  standpoint  may  be 
helpful  in  showing  the  state  of  thought  among  the  Episcopalians.  For  this 
purpose  I  will  give  abbreviated  statements  concerning  a  few  : 

"An  Illumination  to  Open  the  Eyes  of  Papists  (socalled)  and  all  other 
sects,"  etc.,  was  written  by  George  Bishope  (1661.  B.  M.  415 1,  b,  22).  An 
abstract  theological  discussion,  thoughtful  and  able.  Asks  that  toleration  be 
practiced.  Expresses  no  limitation.  Religious  motives.  Quotation:  "The 
thing  I  mind  in  this  small  Treatise,  is  to  Convince  the  World  of  a  Great  Mis- 
take in  Matters  of  Religion  relating  unto  Conscience,  and  the  Liberty  thereof 
in  the  worship  of  God;  Which  whilst  some  would  have;  viz.:  Liberty  for 
themselves;  and  yet  Deny;  viz.:  the  same  Liberty  to  Others  which  them- 
selves would  have;  they  are  not  for  but  against  Liberty  of  Conscience" 
(p.  3).     I  have  not  located  Bishope  denominationally. 

"The  Inconveniences  of  Toleration  "  is  subscribed  to  by  Thomas  Tomkins 
(London,  1667.  Newberry  Lib.).  He  wrote  in  opposition  to  an  appeal  to  the 
king  for  toleration.  Quotation  :  "  Liberty  of  Conscience  is  a  thing  which 
hath  often  made  a  very  Great  Noise  in  the  World  ;  and  is  at  the  first  view  a 
thing  highly  plausible  ;  but  although  it  looks  hugely  pretty  to  the  Notion  ;  yet 
it  was  always  found  strangely  Wild  and  Unmanageable  when  it  ever  came  to 
be  handled  by  Experience  ;  and  we  shall  constantly  find  that  those  who  cryed 
it  up  for  the  most  reasonable  thing  in  the  world  when  themselves  stood  in 
need  of  it,  as  soon  as  ever  they  came  in  Power  would  never  endure  to  hear  of 
it  any  longer"  (p.  i). 


I08  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

"A  Discourse  of  Toleration."  Anonymous (B.  M.  4105,  a.),  1668.  Opposed 
toleration  strongly.  Said  that  dissensions  in  religion  were  contrary  to  the 
interest  of  the  gospel,  were  derived  from  lusts  and  corruptions,  and  at  best 
were  the  infirmities  of  men.  Quotation  :  "  Must  Kings  sit  still,  and  be  the 
idle  spectators  of  injuries  daily  acted  against  the  Religion  they  profess,  be 
quiet  in  their  own  dishonor  and  their  peoples  misery  ?" 

"A  Discourse  of  Ecclesiastical  Politie."  Anonymous.  London,  1670(6.  M. 
852,  f.  5),  326  pages.  Quotation  :  "And  thus  have  I  at  length  finished  what 
I  designed  and  undertook,  i.  e.,  I  have  proved  the  absolute  necessity  of  gov- 
erning Mens  Consciences  and  Perswasions  in  Matters  of  Religion,  and  the 
unavoidable  dangers  of  Tolerating,  or  keeping  up  Religious  Differences  ; 
have  shown,  that  there  is  not  the  least  possibility  of  setling  a  Nation,  but  by 
uniformity  in  Religious  worship  ;  that  religion  may  and  must  be  governed  by 
the  same  Rules,  as  all  other  Affairs  and  Transactions  of  Humane  Life  ;  and 
that  nothing  can  do  it  but  severe  Laws,  nor  they  neither,  unless  severely 
executed." 

"Liberty  of  Conscience  In  its  Order  to  Universal  Peace."  Anonymous. 
London,  1681  (B.  M.  116,  c.  25),  146  pages.  Could  not  tolerate  Romanists. 
Desired  comprehension  of  Protestants.  Philosophical.  Asserted  that  natu- 
ral religion  is  the  only  standard  for  penal  laws  in  religion.  Quotation  from 
preface  :  "  Lastly  I  am  Assured  this  very  Natural  Religion  espoused  by 
Christianity,  well  considered  and  observed,  would  disarm  the  world  of  those 
Instruments  of  Cruelty  in  the  Cause  of  Religion,  so  extreamly  abhored  by  it ; 
whether  used  by  angry  supreme  Powers,  or  unjustly  taken  up  by  Seditious, 
Ambitious  or  Fanatick  Subjects." 

In  the  British  Museum  there  is  a  collection  of  forty-three  tracts  that  come 
from  the  years  1687-8  ("British  Museum  Tracts,"  T.  763).  The  subject  of 
these  is  the  suspension  of  the  penal  laws  and  tests  by  the  "Indulgence"  of 
James  II.     A  few  of  these  may  profitably  be  mentioned  : 

"  Three  Letters  Tending  to  demonstrate  how  the  Security  of  this  Nation 
against  al  Future  Persecution  for  Religion,  Lys  in  the  Abolishment  of  the 
Present  Penal  Laws  and  Tests,  and  in  the  Establishment  of  A  New  Law  for 
Universal  Liberty  of  Conscience."  Anonymous,  1688.  These  letters  were 
written  to  show  that  a  law  made  by  Parliament  for  religious  liberty  would  pro- 
tect the  people  from  the  Roman  Catholics  if  they  should  come  into  power 
and  seek  to  persecute.     Did  not  speak  of  the  king  as  a  Romanist.     (No.  2.) 

"An  Answer  to  a  Letter  to  a  Dissenter  upon  Occasion  of  His  Majesties 
Late  Gracious  Declaration  of  Indulgence."  Sir  Roger  L'Estrange,  Knight. 
London,  1687.  The  author  opposed  the  "Indulgence,"  objecting  to  the  royal 
prerogative.     He  feared  the  Papists.     (No.  7.) 

Another  answer  to  this"  Letter  to  a  Dissenter"  was  written  by  one  T.  G.  He 
treated  the  questions:  "  I.  Whether  Protestant  dissenters  ought  to  refuse  the 
proposed  Legal  Toleration,  Including  Catholick  Dissenters.  II.  Whether 
Protestant    Dissenters  ought    to  accept  the  said  Toleration,  until  the    next 


LA  TER  S  TUA R  T  PERIOD  1 09 

Succession,  upon  the  suggested  hopes  of  Excluding  Catholics."  T.  G.  held 
firmly  that  toleration  was  due  them,  but  the  serious  question  was  in  regard  to 
accepting  a  toleration  which  was  offered  for  the  purpose  of  removing  penal- 
ties from  Romanists.     (No.  9.) 

"  A  Letter  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  City  to  a  Gentleman  in  the  Country 
about  the  Odiousness  of  Persecution."  Anon.,  1687.  Quotation:  "The 
News  of  a  Persecution  meerly  for  a  matter  of  Religion,  at  this  time  a  day, 
when  the  whole  Nation  appears  professedly  to  dislike  it  ;  and  the  giving  coun- 
tenance to  Informers  (who  are  the  Pest  of  every  Nation,  and  the  common 
Enemies  of  Property)  to  the  Prejudice  of  Peaceable  and  Trading  People, 
makes  your  Friends,  who  have  had  notice  of  your  late  Troubles  suspect  that 
there  is  something  in  your  case  more  than  ordinary"  (p.  3).  In  a  postscript 
he  adds  :  "  1  have  here  ommitted  some  of  those  great  Arguments,  both  which 
others  have  used,  and  which  may  yet  be  advanced  from  the  Nature  of  the 
Subject,  partly  because  there  are  so  many  Discourses  extant,  and  partly 
because  English  mankind  begins  to  be  satisfied  in  the  Matter."     (No.  11.) 

"A  Letter  from  a  Gentleman  in  the  Country  to  his  Friends  in  London." 
Anon.,  1687.  Quotation:  "  Gentlemen,  I  wonder  mightily  at  the  news  you 
send  me  that  so  many  of  the  Town  are  averse  to  the  Repeal  of  the  Penal 
Statutes ;  surely  you  mean  the  clergy  of  the  present  Church,  and  those  that 
are  zealous  for  their  Dignity  and  Power ;  For  what  part  of  the  kingdom  has 
felt  the  smart  of  them  more,  and  at  all  times,  and  on  all  occasions  repre- 
sented their  mischief  to  the  Trade,  Peace  and  Plenty  and  wealth  of  the  King- 
dom so  freely  as  the  Town  has  always  done  ?  But  you  unfold  the  Riddle  to 
me,  when  you  tell,  'tis  for  fear  of  Popery,  tho  I  own  to  you,  I  cannot  compre- 
hend it,  any  more  than  you  do  Transubstantiation."     (No.  12,  p.  3.) 

"  The  Good  Old  Test  Revived  and  Recommended."  Anon.  London, 
1687.  The  writer  says  that  the  Christian  test  is  love.  Quotation:  "Let 
every  one  serve  God  to  the  best  of  his  Knowledge  ;  And  though  we  cannot 
joyn  in  Worship,  yet  let  no  hatred  divide  us.  Let  Christians  dread  nothing, 
but  from  Infidels  or  Turks."     (No.  18,  p.  2.) 


CHAPTER  V. 

FINAL   PERIOD,   OR  PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION. 

The  flight  of  James  II.  and  the  accession  of  William  and 
Mary  had  great  significance  in  this  contest  for  freedom.  James 
arbitrarily  offered  an  indulgence  to  dissenters,  that  thereby  he 
might  be  able  to  withstand  the  established  church.  William  was 
bred  in  an  atmosphere  of  liberal  sentiment.  He  was  hostile  to 
Roman  Catholicism,  but  looked  with  favor  upon  Protestants, 
whether  conformists  or  nonconformists.  As  the  accession  of 
Cromwell  to  the  head  of  the  British  government  introduced  a 
powerful  factor  for  liberty,  so  the  accession  of  William  was  the 
interjection  of  foreign  liberality  to  dominate  in  the  seat  of  the 
Stuarts. 

Two  points  must  here  be  noted  :  the  increased  importance 
of  Parliament,  or  the  thorough  establishment  of  a  constitutional 
government ;  and  the  king's  strong  inclination  toward  religious 
freedom.  These  two  conditions,  together  with  the  widespread 
interest  in  the  subject,  made  this  contest  a  conspicuous  feature  in 
the  political  life  of  the  time.  There  were  still  classes  of  people 
marked  out  for  peculiar  suffering  under  the  law.  The  majority 
of  the  dissenters  were  much  eased  from  their  afflictions.  It 
must  not  be  inferred  that  the  agitation  of  this  question  ceased  in 
religious  circles.  All  that  can  be  said  with  assurance  is  that  the 
prominence  of  the  political  struggle  absorbed  the  public  interest. 
It  may  even  be  taken  for  granted  that,  as  today,  so  then,  the 
public  sentiment  concerning  political  questions  was  frequently 
formed  by  discussion  in  religious  circles.  It  was  no  longer  of 
strictly  ecclesiastical  concern. 

Before  the  crowning  of  William  and  Mary,  Parliament  caused 
them  to  sign  the  Bill  of  Rights  as  a  condition  of  their  being 
crowned.  It  provided  that  Papists  should  be  debarred  from  the 
throne.  Having  complied  with  this  requirement,  and  having 
entered  upon  their  reign,  William  proposed  without  delay  that 
the  Test  and   Corporation   Acts    should    be    abolished    and    all 

no 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  A  GITA  TION  I  I  I 

Protestants  be  admitted  to  public  service.  This  was  without  avail, 
but  "An  Act  for  exempting  their  Majesties'  Protestant  subjects 
Dissenting  from  the  Church  of  England,  from  the  Penalties  of 
Certain  Laws."  popularly  known  as  the  "Toleration  Act,"^^ 
passed  both  houses  by  May,  1689.  Though  this  bill  was  so 
important,  its  passage  was  effected  wath  but  little  discussion.  It 
is  frequently  called  the  "  Magna  Charta  of  Religious  Liberty."  It 
practically  repealed  the  Act  of  Uniformity  of  1662.  It  gave  free 
exercise  of  religion  to  all  Protestants  except  Unitarians.  By  it 
Quakers  were  relieved  from  taking  oaths,  provided  they  substi- 
tute a  stipulated  declaration.  The  measure,  however,  was  not 
ideal.  It  was  politic  rather.  By  it  the  sentiment  of  the  people 
was  crystallized    into  the   form  of   a  statute. ^9     Connected  with 

88 "This  Bill  gave  the  King  great  content.  He  in  his  own  opinion  always 
thought  that  Conscience  was  God's  Province  and  that  it  ought  not  to  be  imposed  upon  : 
And  his  experience  in  Holland  made  him  look  on  Toleration,  as  one  of  the  wisest 
measures  of  the  Government :  He  was  much  troubled  to  see  so  much  ill  humour  spread- 
ing among  the  Clergy,  and  by  their  means  over  a  great  part  of  the  Nation.  He  was 
so  true  to  his  Principle  herein,  that  he  restrained  the  heat  of  some,  who  were  proposing 
severe  acts  against  the  Papists.  He  made  them  apprehend  the  advantage  which  that 
would  give  the  French,  to  alienate  all  the  Papists  of  Europe  from  us  ;  who  from  thence 
might  hope  to  set  on  foot  a  new  Catholick  League,  and  make  the  War  a  quarrel  of 
Religion :  which  might  have  very  bad  effects.  Nor  could  he  pretend  to  protect  the 
Protestants  in  Germany,  and  in  Hungary,  unless  he  cover  the  Papists  in  England, 
from  all  Severities  on  the  account  of  their  Religion.  This  was  so  carefully  infused 
into  many,  and  so  well  understood  by  them,  that  the  Papists  have  enjoy'd  the  real 
effects  of  the  Toleration,  tho'  they  were  not  comprehended  within  the  Statute  that 
enacted  it."     (Burnet,  Our  Own  Times,  Vol.  HI,  pp.  15  f.) 

89 Commenting  on  the  Toleration  Act,  Macaulay  has  said:  "If  a  bill  had  been 
drawn  up  granting  entire  freedom  of  conscience  to  all  Protestants,  it  may  be  confi- 
dently affirmed  that  Nottingham  would  never  have  introduced  such  a  bill ;  that  all  the 
bishops,  Burnet  included,  would  have  voted  against  it;  that  it  would  have  been 
denounced  Sunday  after  Sunday,  from  ten  thousand  pulpits,  as  an  insult  to  God  and  to 
all  Christian  men,  and  as  a  license  to  the  worst  heretics  and  blasphemers ;  that  it 
would  have  been  burned  by  the  mob  in  half  of  the  market  places  in  England  ;  that  it 
would  never  have  become  the  law  of  the  land,  and  that  it  would  have  made  the  very 
name  of  toleration  odious  during  many  years  to  the  great  majority  of  the  people. 

"  It  is  true  that  the  Toleration  Act  recognised  persecution  as  the  rule,  and 
granted  liberty  of  conscience  only  as  the  exception.  But  it  is  equally  true  that  the 
rule  remained  in  force  only  against  a  few  hundreds  of  Protestant  dissenters,  and  that 
the  benefit  of  the  exceptions  extended  to  hundreds  of  thousands. 

"  It  is  true  that  it  was  in  theory  absurd  to  make  Howe  sign  thirty-four  or  thirty-five 
of  the  Anglican  Articles  before  he  could  preach,  and  to  let  Penn  preach  without  sign- 
ing one  of  those  Articles."     (History  of  Eng.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  83.) 


112  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

this  legislation  there  was  also  a  serious  attempt  to  effect  the  long- 
desired  comprehension.^"  The  House  of  Commons  went  so  far  as 
to  appoint  a  commission  to  suggest  alterations  to  the  Prayer 
Book,  and  the  commission  completed  its  task,  but  when  pre- 
sented for  action  the  proposed  measure  was  unsatisfactory  and 
suffered  rejection. 

The  relief  thus  granted  to  the  dissenters  greatly  aggravated 
the  ministers  of  the  established  church.  They  sought  to  revive 
the  spirit  of  persecution.  But  Bishop  Burnet  tells  us  that 
wise  and  good  men  did  much  applaud  the  quieting  the  Nation  by  Toleration. 
It  seemed  to  be  suitable,  both  to  the  Spirit  of  the  Christian  Religion,  and 
to  the  Interest  of  the  Nation.  It  was  thought  very  unreasonable  that,  while 
we  were  complaining  of  the  cruelty  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  we  should  fall  into 
such  practises  among  ourselves  ;  chiefly  while  we  were  engaging  in  a  war,  in 
the  progress  of  which  we  would  need  the  united  strength  of  the  whole 
Nation.     {^Our  Otvn  Tvnes,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  15.) 

The  size  and  importance  of  the  dissenting  bodies  made  this 
attack  of  the  clergy  vain.  Their  power  to  make  the  government 
subserve  their  interests  was  gone. 

In  this  early  part  of  William's  reign  important  treatises  on 
the  subject  of  toleration  were  issuing  from  the  press.  The  first  of 
John  Locke's^'  famous  "Letters  on  Toleration"  was  written  this 

50  Among  the  less  scrupulous  of  the  churchmen  as  well  as  dissenters  the  desire 
long  existed  to  absorb  dissent  back  into  the  national  organization.  Uniformity  in 
religion  was  thought  to  be  of  the  utmost  importance.  The  churchmen  interested  in  it 
thought  that  it  would  quell  dissent,  while  the  dissenters  interested  hoped  by  it  to  gain 
the  backing  of  the  state.  The  Independents  and  Baptists  were  generally  opposed  to 
this  scheme  for  comprehension.  Its  success  would  have  tended  to  lower  the  reli- 
gious ideals  of  the  nation. 

"John  Locke  was  a  representative  deist.  And  while  this  school  of  thinkers  was 
not  unanimously  in  favor  of  liberty  of  thought,  the  general  tendency  was  strongly  in 
that  direction.  Thomas  Hobbes,  whose  deism  is  questioned,  placed  all  authority  in 
the  state.  Though  he  felt  very  uncomfortable  when  the  state  did  not  agree  with  him, 
he  still  remained  subservient  in  theory.  The  Earl  of  Shaftesbury  also,  at  the  expense 
of  a  complete  contradiction  in  his  theory,  upheld  the  state's  authority.  As  a  class  the 
deists  were  freethinkers.  They  were  the  subjects  of  no  little  ill-feeling  and  real  per- 
secution. Mandeville's  The  Fable  of  the  Bees,  Toland's  Christianity  not  Myste- 
rious, Tvndal's  Rights  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  BoLlNGBROKE's  Posthumous 
Works,  were  all  presented  by  the  grand  jury  of  Middlesex.  When  Collins  published 
his  Discourse  on  Freethinking  there  was  a  commotion.  Collins  went  to  Holland,  and 
some  have  asserted  that  he  did  it  to  escape  persecution.  Cf.  Lecky's  England  in  the 
Eighteenth  Century,  Vol.  I,  p.  361. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  II3 

year  in  Latin,  and  soon  translated  into  Dutch,  French,  and  Eng- 
lish. These  letters  are  rightly  celebrated,  yet  not  because  of  the 
high  ideal  set  forth,  since  they  advocate  a  limited  toleration. 
Their  merit  is  that  they  present  a  forcible  and  full  philosophical 
argument.  Locke's  weakness  lies  not  so  much  in  his  premises 
as  in  his  conclusions.  Without  a  knowledge  of  the  practical 
affairs  of  the  government  during  those  days,  it  would  be  incon- 
ceivable how  one  could  lay  down  general  premises  and  arrive  at 
particular  conclusions.^^  Yet  had  he  advanced  the  inherent 
rights  of  man,  he  surely  would  have  been  forced  to  conclude 
that  he  had  a  right,  so  far  as  human  government  is  concerned, 
even  to  reject  Christianity.  In  regard  to  the  relation  between 
the  magistrate  and  the  subject,  Locke  denied  the  prerogatives  of 
the  king,  but  did  not  afifirm  the  dignity  and  prerogatives  of 
the  citizen.  Nor  should  this  class  of  arguments  be  regarded  as 
peculiarly  telling  in  its  time,  for  but  few  minds  were  fitted  to 
appreciate  his  heavy  style,  or  to  follow  him  in  his  close  distinc- 
tions. It  has  been  the  province  of  later  times  to  give  him  due 
praise,  as  Milton  also. 

An  abstract  of  the  first  letter,  though  it  presents  little  that  is 
new,  is  worthy  of  a  place  in  this  account.  He  says:  "I  esteem 
toleration  to  be  the  chief  characteristical  mark  of  the  true  church." 
However  much  some  people  boast  of  the  antiquity  of  places  and 
names,  or  of  the  pomp  of  their  outward  worship  ;  others,  of 
the  reformation  of  their  discipline  ;  all,  of  the  orthodoxy  of  their 
faith,   for   everyone  is  orthodox    to   himself;    these  things  and 

9^  An  interpretation  of  Locke  which  comes  to  us  from  the  city  of  Dublin  is  inter- 
esting. The  tract  is  entitled  Lockes  Opinions  upon  Toleration,  By  Pro  Arts  et  Focis, 
1824.  (B.  M.  8145,  A.)  "  My  Lord  Having  heard  it  said  that  the  Roman  Catholics  lay 
claim  to  the  most  unbounded  participation  in  all  the  privileges  of  the  State,  relying 
principally,  upon  Mr.  Lockes  letters  upon  toleration,  I  think  it  but  proper  to  go  fairly, 
and  step  through  his  principles  and  arguments,  that  all  candid  and  rational  men  may 
see,  without  deception  and  without  assumption  what  were  the  broad  and  open  concep- 
tions of  that  great  and  liberal  man  upon  this  most  interesting  subject"  (p.  2).  "It 
is  quite  plain  that,  although  Locke  is  perfectly  consistent  with  himself  and  with  the 
truth,  that  he  does  not  allow  of  that  unlimited  toleration  which  is  at  this  moment 
allowed  to  the  subject  of  a  foreign  Potentate.  Subjects  they  are,  because,  either 
directly,  or  in  a  way  as  effectual,  they  acknoledge  a  foreign  jurisdiction  and  authority 
to  tally  irreconcileable  with  the  spirit  of  our  constitutions  which  will  not  brook  the 
intrusion  of  any  strange,  unrecognized  power."     (Pp.  7  f.) 


114  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

all  others  of  this  nature  are  much  rather  marks  of  men's  striving 
for  power  and  empire  over  one  another  than  of  the  church  of 
Christ.  The  Christian  must  first  make  war  upon  his  own  lusts 
and  vices.  Then,  if  the  gospels  and  apostles  may  be  credited,  no 
man  can  be  a  Christian  without  charity  and  without  the  faith  that 
works,  not  by  faith,  but  by  love.  That  divisions  among  sects 
are  obstructive  to  salvation  I  grant,  yet  not  so  obstructive  as 
immorality.  Until  men  apply  themselves  to  the  rooting  out  of 
immorality  for  the  purpose  of  saving  souls  I  will  not  admit  that 
their  cause  for  persecution  is  the  good  of  men.  Toleration  is 
agreeable  to  the  gospel  of  Christ  and  is  not  subversive  to  the 
interests  of  the  commonwealth.  The  civil  interests  are  life, 
liberty,  health,  and  indolence  of  body,  and  the  possession  of  out- 
ward things,  such  as  money,  lands,  houses,  furniture,  and  the  like. 
The  whole  jurisdiction  of  the  magistrate  reaches  only  to  these 
civil  matters.  The  care  of  souls  is  not  committed  to  the  civil 
magistrate,  any  more  than  to  other  men.  His  power  consists 
only  in  outward  force,  while  true  and  saving  religion  consists  in 
the  inward  persuasion  of  the  mind  without  which  nothing  can  be 
acceptable  to  God.  The  magistrate  may  use  arguments  to  pro- 
cure the  salvation  of  the  heterodox,  but  that  does  not  belong  to 
his  magistracy.  It  belongs  to  his  humanity  or  Christianity. 
Moreover,  the  care  of  the  salvation  of  men's  souls  cannot  belong 
to  the  magistrate,  for  if  the  enforcement  of  laws  could  change 
men's  minds,  yet  it  could  not  help  at  all  in  the  salvation  of  souls. 
But  let  us  consider  the  nature  of  a  church.  It  is  a  free  and 
voluntary  society.  Nobody  is  born  a  member  of  any  church, 
otherwise  the  religion  of  parents  would  descend  unto  children  by 
the  same  right  of  inheritance  as  their  temporal  estates,  which  is 
absurd.  Churches  must  have  some  laws  and  rules,  but,  since 
they  are  free  societies,  they  should  make  their  own  laws.  Some 
believe  that  the  true  church  must  have  a  bishop,  who  is  in 
apostolic  succession.  To  these  I  answer  :  Let  them  show  me  the 
edict  by  which  Christ  has  imposed  this  law  upon  his  church. 
Those  who  have  been  in  this  succession  have  always  had  dissen- 
sions among  them.  But  I  do  not  object  to  the  existence  of 
a  church,  with   however  long  a  series  of  a  succession,   if    I   be 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  A  GITA  TION  I  I  5 

permitted  to  join  that  society  in  which  are  those  things  that  I 
deem  necessar}'  to  the  salvation  of  my  soul.  Of  those  who  are 
anxious  about  the  true  church  let  me  ask :  Would  it  not  be 
more  agreeable  to  the  church  of  Christ  to  make  the  conditions 
of  her  communion  consist  of  such  things  as  are  necessary  to 
salvation  ? 

In  regard  to  idolatrous  churches,  law  will  not  extinguish 
idolatry.  It  does  not  follow  that  because  idolatry  is  a  sin  the 
magistrate  may  punish  it  any  more  than  covetousness,  unchari- 
tableness,  idleness,  etc.  The  law  of  Moses  is  not  obligator}^  upon 
Christians. 

Thus  far  concerning  outward  worship.  Let  us  now  consider 
articles  of  faith.  Some  articles  of  religion  are  practical,  some 
speculative.  It  is  absurd  to  impose  speculative  opinions  by  the 
law  of  the  land.  A  sweet  religion,  indeed,  that  obliges  men  to 
dissemble  and  to  tell  lies  to  both  God  and  man,  for  the  salvation 
of  their  souls  !  Speculative  opinions  have  no  relation  to  civil 
rights  and  ought  not  to  be  forbidden.  The  Roman  Catholics' 
belief  in  transubstantiation  and  the  Jews'  disbelief  in  the  New 
Testament  do  not  injure  their  neighbors.  As  to  practical  opinions, 
a  good  life,  in  which  consists  not  the  least  part  of  religion  and 
true  piety,  concerns  also  the  civil  government.  Moral  actions 
belong,  therefore,  to  the  jurisdiction  of  both  the  outward  and 
inward  court ;  I  mean  both  of  the  magistrate  and  conscience. 
As  to  one's  salvation,  exhortations  and  arguments  alone  avail. 
The  magistrate  is  authorized  to  provide  for  the  security  of  each 
man's  private  possessions ;  for  the  peace,  riches,  and  public 
commodities  of  the  whole  people,  and  as  much  as  possible  for 
the  increase  of  their  mward  strength  against  foreign  invasion. 
The  chief  care  of  everyone  ought  to  be  of  his  own  soul  first, 
and  in  the  next  place  of  the  public  peace.  Yet  no  opinions  con- 
trary to  human  society  or  to  those  moral  rules  which  are  neces- 
sary to  the  preservation  of  civil  society  are  to  be  tolerated  by 
the  magistrate.  Again,  that  church  can  have  no  right  to  be 
tolerated  by  the  magistrate  which  is  so  constituted  that  all  who 
enter  it  do  thereby,  ipso  facto,  deliver  themselves  up  to  the  pro- 
tection and  service  of  another  prince.     Lastly,  those  are  not  at 


Il6  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

all  to  be  tolerated  who  deny  the  being  of  God.  The  sum  of  all 
we  drive  at  is  that  every  man  enjoy  the  same  rights  that  are 
granted  to  others.  Let  no  man's  life,  or  body,  or  house,  or  estate 
suffer  any  manner  of  prejudice  on  account  of  worship. 

Three  other  letters  followed  this  masterly  presentation  of  the 
cause  of  limited  toleration,  drawn  out  by  the  opposition  of  Jonas 
Proast,  of  Oxford.  The  debate  was  one  of  the  greatest  English 
controversies.  Proast  was  a  vigorous  antagonist,  but  could  in 
no  way  cope  with  Locke.  The  part  taken  by  Locke  in  this  con- 
test, while  honorable  and  important,  was  not  ideal  nor  indis- 
pensable. That  which  he  advocated  was  already  nearly  gained 
in  his  native  land,  and  crystallized  into  statute.  His  province 
was  to  assist  in  confirming  the  views  of  those  who  were  favorable 
to  toleration,  though  their  thoughts  might  be  confused  and  their 
expression  incoherent. 

John  Howe  also  published  anonymously  an  appeal  for  dissent. 
His  production  was  entitled  "The  case  of  the  Protestant  Dissenters 
represented  and  argued."  He  based  the  right  of  dissent  on  the 
natural  claims  of  conscience,  on  the  human  origin  of  those  forms 
and  ceremonies  which  divided  dissenters  from  the  church,  on  the 
unnatural  cruelty  of  the  laws  by  which  the  supremacy  of  the 
church  had  been  enforced,  and  on  the  known  patriotism  of 
dissenters.  Howe  af^rmed  that  the  generality  of  dissenters 
differed  from  the  Church  of  England  in  no  substantials  of 
doctrine  of  worship,  or  even  of  government,  provided  that  the 
government  was  so  managed  as  to  attain  its  acknowledged  end. 
He  also  argued  against  the  reasonableness  of  excluding  dis- 
senters from  any  participation  in  civil  affairs.  He  held  that 
there  could  be  no  union  or  peace  in  the  Christian  world  until 
arbitrary  inclosures  were  removed  and  Christians  were  content 
with  those  their  common  Lord  had  set.93 

But  the  combined  influence  of  the  king's  favorable  attitude 
and  the  agitation  of  great  writers  could  not  prevent  legis- 
lation for  intolerance.  In  1697  there  was  an  act  passed  against 
Unitarian  publications.  It  provided  that  any  person  found 
writing,  printing,  publishing,  or  circulating  any  works  against  the 
"Skeats  and  Miai.l,  p.  104. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  \\^ 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  or  preaching  against  it,  was  to  lose  nearly 
all  the  privileges  of  citizenship.  He  could  neither  sue  nor  be 
sued,  bequeath  nor  receive  property.  He  was  to  be  imprisoned 
three  years  without  bail  and  could  never  after  hold  public  office.94 

By  means  of  the  law  for  occasional  conformity  such  dis- 
senters as  would  avail  themselves  of  its  privileges  could  share 
in  the  functions  of  government.  The  Presbyterians  as  a  rule 
availed  themselves  of  the  opportunities  it  afforded.  King 
William  not  only  favored  this,  but  would  have  gone  farther.  His 
successor,  Queen  Anne,  was  at  first  strongly  opposed  to  every- 
thing that  seemed  to  favor  dissent,  and  so  a  movement  was  soon 
on  foot  to  do  away  with  occasional  conformity.  This  contest 
raged  through  the  years  1702,  1703,  and  1704.  The  Whigs  were 
dependent  to  a  great  extent  on  the  votes  of  the  dissenting  mem- 
bers of  corporations.  Most  of  the  bishops  had  been  appointed 
bv  William  and  were  favorable  to  liberal  legislation.  These 
conditions  secured  a  temporary  victory  for  occasional  con- 
formity. 

Concerning  the  first  opposition  to  this  practice  Bishop  Burnet 
wrote  : 

A  motion  was  made  in  the  House  of  Commons,  for  bringing  in  the  Bill 
against  occasional  conformity ;  Great  opposition  was  made  to  it,  but  it  was 
carried  by  a  great  majority,  that  such  a  bill  should  be  brought  in.  So  a  new 
draught  was  formed  :  In  it  the  preamble  that  was  in  the  former  bill,  was  left 
out.  The  number  besides  the  family,  that  made  a  conventicle,  was  enlarged 
from  five  to  twelve  :  and  the  fine  set  on  those  that  went  to  conventicles  after 
they  had  received  the  sacrament,  besides  the  loss  of  their  employment,  was 
brought  down  to  fifty  pounds ;  So  it  was  a  breach  made  upon  the  toleration, 
which  ought  not  to  be  done,  since  they  had  not  deserved  it  by  any  ill  behaviour 
of  theirs,  by  which  it  could  be  pretended  that  they  had  forfeited  any  of  the 
benefits,  designed  by  that  act :  ....  The  bishops  were  almost  equally  divided: 
There  were  two  more  against  it  than  for  it :  Among  these,  I  had  the  largest 
censure  on  me,  because  I  spoke  much  against  the  bill ;....!  ventured  to 
say,  that  a  man  might  lawfully  communicate  with  a  church,  that  he  thought 

s-'The  demand  that  all  government  officials  partake  of  the  sacrament  in  the  estab- 
lished church  led  to  this  practice  of  occasional  conformity.  It  consisted  in  nonconform- 
ists going  to  established  churches  as  frequently  as  the  law  required,  but  not  more 
frequently.  The  law  demanded  that  not  even  an  exciseman  could  qualify  without 
observing  this  church  rite.  The  act  made  them  churchmen  in  theory.  By  this  demand 
the  government  secured  for  its  officials  either  conformists  or  conscienceless  dissenters. 


I  l8  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

had  a  worship  and  a  doctrine  uncorrupted,  and  yet  communicate  more  fre- 
quently with  a  church  that  he  thought  more  perfect ;  ....  So  tho'  the  Dis- 
senters were  in  a  mistake,  as  to  their  opinion  which  was  the  more  perfect 
church,  yet  allowing  them  a  toleration  of  that  error  this  practise  might  be 
justified.95 

.  The  failure  of  this  bill  and  several  of  its  successors  indicates 
the  strong  feeling  which  existed  in  favor  of  allowing  the  more 
moderate  dissenters  an  opportunity  to  hold  office.  Seven  years 
later,  however,  the  law  was  again  assailed,  and  this  time  with 
success.  In  1714,  three  3'ears  after  this  success,  and  when  it  was 
seen  that  dissent  was  not  paralyzed  by  it,  the  Schism  Bill  was 
introduced.  It  provided  that  no  person  should  keep  any  public 
or  private  school,  or  teach,  who  did  not  conform  and  had  obtained 
a  license  from  the  bishop  to  teach.  The  penalty  was  imprison- 
ment without  bail.  The  bill  was  passed  and  was  signed  by 
Queen  Anne  on  June  25.  It  was  to  go  into  effect  on  Sunday, 
August  I.  On  that  day  the  queen  died,  and  the  Schism  Act 
became  a  dead  letter.  This  was  the  last  law  passed  in  England 
for  the  limitation  of  religious  liberty. 

In  1718,  during  the  reign  of  George  I.,  there  was  an  attempt 
to  repeal  parts  of  the  Occasional  Conformity,  Schism,  Test,  and 
Corporation  Acts.  The  king  favored  the  passage  of  the  entire 
bill,  but  believing  that  to  press  the  repeal  of  the  Test  and  Cor- 
poration Acts  would  be  prejudicial  to  his  newly  established  rule, 
they  were  finally  withdrawn  and  the  remainder  of  the  bill  passed. 
The  dissenters  were  convinced  that  their  hopes  lay  in  the  success 
of  the  Hanoverian  house,  which  had  just  been  introduced  by  the 
accession  of  George  I.,  and  had  assumed  a  favorable  attitude 
toward  dissent;  so  they  waived  their  rights  for  a  time  to  sustain 
the  throne.  The  question  of  the  repeal  of  the  test  laws  was 
before  the  nation  for  a  century,  and  was  a  contest  of  great  sig- 
nificance. It  was  destined  to  engage  the  attention  of  Pitt  and 
Fox,  the  former  as  the  representative  of  the  government  and 
the  latter  as  the  eloquent  advocate  of  liberty.  Probably  as  good 
an  outline  of  the  differing  views  on  this  problem  as  can  be  found 
is  presented  in  the  dissenter's  "Plea,"  written  by  George  Walker 
and  published  at  the  request  of  the  Committee  of  the  Protestant 
95  Burnet,  Our  Own  Times,  Vol.  IV,  pp.  30  f. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  I  1 9 

Dissenters  of  the  Midland  District.  (B.  M.  4135,00.;  pp.  2  f.) 
Walker  said  that 

the  principles  on  which  the  reasoning  of  the  Protestant  Dissenters  has 
been  conducted  and  their  claims  asserted  may  be  reducible  to  these  :  I.  That 
political  society  is  for  the  good  of  all,  that  protection  and  accessibility  to  all 
the  advantages  and  privileges  of  a  citizen,  are  the  rights  of  a  citizen,  and  that 
responsibility  for  civil  allegiance  is  the  only  condition  of  this  right.  .  II.  That 
religion  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil  magistrate ;  that  it  is  the 
inalienable  property  of  every  mdividual  for  which  he  is  answerable  to  God 
alone  ;  and  that  no  difference  of  religious  faith  and  worship  ought  to  exclude 
a  citizen  from  one  of  those  rights  or  privileges  which  he  claims  on  the  grounds 
of  the  preceding  principle.  On  these  two  the  whole  reasoning  of  the  Protestant 
Dissenter  turns ;  ....  The  principles  of  our  antagonists  which  are  to  be 
collected  from  their  publications  and  the  debates  in  Parliament  appear  to  be 
reducible  to  these  heads  :  I.  That  toleration  is  due  to  all  who  can  answer  to 
the  claim  of  civil  allegiance.  II.  That  the  magistrate  has  a  right  to  chuse  a 
national  religion,  and  that  special  immunities,  honours,  and  rewards  at  the 
discretion  of  the  civil  magistrate  may,  and  ought  to  be,  conferred  on  the  mem- 
bers of  his  favoured  religion.  III.  That  the  Church  of  England  is  this 
national  and  favored  religion  ;  that  there  is  a  contract  or  alliance  between 
this  church  and  the  state ;  that  the  Test  Laws  are  necessary  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  the  church ;  and  that  the  church  is  necessary  to  the  preservation  of 
the  civil  constitution  of  this  kingdom.  IV.  That  the  Dissenters  are  hostile 
to  the  church  ;  that  they  must  wish  its  subversion,  and  that  the  more 
conscientious  is  the  Dissenter,  the  more  must  he  be  disposed  and  the  more 
must  he  operate  to  this  end.  V.  That  civil  trust  and  power  are  dangerous 
instruments  in  the  hands  of  a  Dissenter,  and  that  therefore  they  are  justly 
denied  to  him.  VI.  That  the  door  of  conformity  being  open  to  him,  it  is  by 
the  act  of  his  own  will  that  he  enters  not  this  door,  and  that  he  has  1^0  right 
therefore  to  complain  of  the  disabilities  and  penalties  which  are  the  con- 
sequences of  his  refusal.  VII.  That  the  Sacramental  Test  is  a  discrimina- 
tion of  religious  character ;  that  it  is  a  wise  provision  of  the  state  ;  and  that 
it  is  no  perversion  or  profanation  of  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  Supper. 
VIII.  That  civil  ofhces  are  favours,  not  rights;  that  they  are  of  the  nature  of 
an  estate  in  the  discretionary  use  of  the  magistrate ;  that  he  may  dispose  of 
them  to  whom  he  pleases  ;  and  this  not  individually,  which  is  not  contested  ; 
but  that  by  a  general  law  he  may  exclude  any  description  of  subjects  from 
the  admission  to  them.  To  these  are  added  other  principles,  we  hope  only  as 
the  effusions  of  uninformed  and  passionate  minds,  which  surrender  into  the 
hands  and  the  discretion  of  the  magistrate,  all  the  rights  and  even  the  prop- 
erty of  the  subject,  which  go  to  the  abandonment  of  the  whole  foundation 
and  structure  of  legal  liberty. 


120  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

These  attitudes  of  the  different  parties  toward  the  dissenter's 
liberties  were  inspired  by  political  motives.  The  Jacobites^^ 
opposed  the  government  and  its  Protestant  alliances.  Since  the 
dissenters  stood  by  the  government,  the  Jacobite  influence  was 
opposed  to  them.      Burnet  states  that 

it  was  manifest  that  there  were  two  different  parties  among  the  Clergy ;  one 
that  was  firm  and  faithful  to  the  present  government,  and  served  it  with  zeal : 
These  did  not  envy  the  Dissenters  the  ease  that  the  Toleration  gave  them  ; 
they  wished  for  a  favorable  upportunity  of  making  such  alterations  in  some 
few  rites  and  ceremonies  as  might  bring  into  the  Church  (Established)  those 
who  were  not  at  too  great  a  distance  from  it :  and  I  do  freely  own  that  I  was 
of  that  number.  Others  took  the  oathes  indeed,  and  concurred  in  every  act 
of  compliance  with  the  Government,  but  they  were  not  only  cold  in  serving 
it,  but  were  always  blaming  the  Administration,  and  aggravating  misfortunes  ; 
They  expressed  a  great  esteem  for  Jacobites,  and  in  all  Elections  gave  their 
votes  for  those  who  leaned  that  way :  At  the  same  time  they  showed  great 
resentments  against  the  Dissenters,  and  were  enemies  to  the  Toleration,  and 
seemed  resolved  never  to  consent  to  any  alteration  in  their  favor.  The  bulk 
of  the  Clergy  ran  this  way,  so  that  the  moderate  party  were  far  outnumbered.*' 

The  division  of  the  clergy  on  this  subject  was  not  in  propor- 
tion to  that  of  the  nation  at  large.  A  strong  feeling  existed 
against  the  Papists.  The  hatred  remaining  against  the  old 
Stuarts  was  very  nearly  the  measure  of  opposition  to  the  Roman 
Catholics.  This  was  shown  when  the  establishment  of  the  Peace 
of  Ryswick  caused  many  priests  to  take  up  their  residence  in 
England.  Those  who  had  left  England  on  account  of  the  revolu- 
tion, which  ushered  in  William  and  a  decided  Protestantism,  now 
returned,  with  many  additions  to  their  numbers. 

Upon  this  [says  Burnet]  some  proposed  a  Bill,  that  obliged  all  persons  edu- 
cated in  that  religion,  or  suspected  to  be  of  it,  who  should  succeed  to  any 
estate  before  they  were  of  the  age  of  eighteen,  to  take  Oathes  of  Allegiance 
and  supremacy,  and  the  Test,  as  soon  as  they  came  to  that  age  ;  and  till  they 
did  it,  the  estate  was  to  devolve  to  the  next  of  kin  that  was  a  protestant  ;  but 

9*  The  Jacobites  were  the  adherents  of  the  old  Stuart  family.  The  deposition  of 
James  II.  was  not  quite  unanimously  acceptable  when  it  occurred.  Whatever 
unpleasantnesses  arose  during  the  succeeding  reigns  could  not  but  increase  the  num- 
ber of  the  disaffected.  Tames  II.  and  his  son,  who  was  once  rebelliously  proclaimed 
James  III.,  were  Roman  Catholics.  The  continuance  of  this  party,  and  the  persistence 
with  which  it  propagated  views  distasteful  to  the  English  people,  suggest  the  fact  that 
foreign  nations  interested  themselves  in  the  movement. 

97  Burnet,  Our  Oicn  Times,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  296  f. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGII'ATION  121 

was  to  return  back  to  them  upon  their  taking  the  Oathes.  All  popish  priests 
were  banished  by  this  Bill.'^ 

Both  houses  of  Parliament  passed  this  bill,  and  it  was  enacted  as 
law.  So  we  see  that  the  major  part  of  the  clergy  who  favored 
the  Jacobites  and  opposed  the  government  was  so  out  of 
harmony  with  the  public  at  large  that  what  they  favored  the 
Parliament  put  under  the  ban. 

The  frequent  conspiracies  of  the  Jacobites  brought  the  Papists 
into  trouble  with  the  government.  Because  of  one  of  these  con- 
spiracies Atterbury,  the  bishop  of  Rochester,  was  deposed  and 
banished.  Walpole  made  it  the  occasion  for  raising  the  sum  of 
one  hundred  thousand  pounds  upon  the  property  of  the  popish 
recusants.  At  the  same  time  all  Papists  were  required  to  depart 
from  the  cities  of  London  and  Westminster,  and  from  within  ten 
miles  of  them,  and  to  keep  strictly  within  their  own  dwellings. 
This  arose  from  the  Jacobite  disturbances  at  the  death  of  Queen 
Anne.  When  George  I.  was  established  on  the  throne  there  was 
a  lull.  A  score  of  years  later  there  were  further  difficulties,  and 
the  popular  feeling  rose  again.  Even  Blackstone  interpreted 
the  law  in  the  sense  that  where  a  person  is  reconciled  to  the  see 
of  Rome,  or  procures  others  to  be  reconciled,  the  offense  amounts 
to  high  treason.99  Nor  may  this  opposition  be  attributed  to  a 
spirit  of  intolerance.  There  were  sufficient  political  reasons  for 
interference.  The  mistake  of  the  government  was  in  treating 
the  disaffected  as  Papists  rather  than  as  traitors  directly.  It 
was  as  late  as  1829  that  the  civil  emancipation  of  the  Catholics 
occurred.  Then  oppressive  laws,  those  especially  which  barred 
their  entrance  into  the  houses  of  Parliament  and  the  functions 
of  the  magistracy,  were  definitely  abolished. 

"An  Historical  Treatise  concerning  Jews  and  Judaism  in 
England"  was  published  in  the  3-ear  1720.  (B.  M.,  T.  1750 
(7).)      This  asserts  that 

the  principle  Grounds  for  their  banishments,  (in  the  reign  of  Ed.  I.)  after  they 
had  resided  in  this  Kingdom  for  220  years,  was  for  their  Blasphemies,  and 
stealing  and  crucifying  christian  children,  for  defacing  or  clipping  the  coin, 
for  their  impiety  and  Immorals,  for  their  Infidelity,  Usuries,  and  Forgeries  of 

9^  Our  Own  Times,  Vol.  Ill,  pp.  316  f. 

99  Abbey,  Eng.  Ch.  and  Bishops,  Vol.  I,  p.  216. 


122  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Charters,  for  falsifying  Money,  for  imposing  upon  and  cheating  English 
Merchants,  and  for  attempting  to  pervert  christians  to  Judaism.  ...  As  for 
the  great  Liberty  which  the  Jews  now  take  in  this  Realm,  it  is  evident  that  by 
our  antient  Laws  and  Decrees  that  they  have  no  pretense  or  the  least  colour 
of  Law  or  right  to  claim  such  privileges  here  ;  and  that  the  impious  and 
immoral  freedom  which  the  Jews  take  amongst  us  is  depending  upon  the 
force  and  power  of  their  money. 

This  writer  makes  it  clear  that  an  agitation  looking  toward  the 
removal  of  their  disabilities  had  been  begun.  He  sa3's  :  "There 
are  but  two  arguments  used  for  the  Re-admission  of  the  Jews  ; 
one  whereof  is,  the  Hope  of  their  Conversion  ;  and  the  second 
is,  that  the  Jews  bring  in  money  and  promote  Trade."  The 
writer's  object  seems  to  have  been  to  overcome  the  leniency 
toward  the  Jews  which  arose  partly  from  the  widespread  belief 
that  the  time  for  their  conversion  was  at  hand. 

In  the  years  1753-4  the  nation  was  greatly  stirred  by  the 
attempt  to  diminish  the  restrictions  against  the  Jews.  •  A  bill 
fathered  by  the  Pelhams  provided  that  Parliament  have  permis- 
sion to  pass  special  acts  to  naturalize  those  Jews  who  applied  for 
citizenship.  This  was  passed,  but  it  produced  a  popular  out- 
burst and  great  commotion,  so  that  it  was  repealed  in  1754- 
The  bishops  and  almost  all  of  the  better  educated  of  the  clergy 
defended  the  cause  of  tolerance ;  but  the  spirit  which  prevailed 
among  the  populace  was  so  violent  that  there  was  fear  lest  it 
might  })ossibly  result  in  a  massacre. '°°  Not  until  the  latter  half 
of  the  nineteenth  century  (1855)  were  the  Jews  granted  liberty 
of  religious  worship.  It  was  still  three  years  later  (1858)  that 
an  "Act  to  Provide  for  the  Relief  for  her  Majesty's  Subjects  pro- 
fessing the  Jewish  Religion  "  empowered  either  house  of  Parlia- 
ment to  modify  the  form  of  oath  so  as  to  enable  a  Jew  to  sit  and 
vote.  This  same  act  precluded  them  from  holding  certain 
ofifices.^°^ 

A  momentary  glimpse  of  the  struggle  is  to  be  got  from  "A 
Collection  of  Testimonies  in  favor  of  Religious  Liberty,  in  case 
of  the  Dissenters,  Catholics,  and  Jews,"  put  forth  in  1790,  over 
the  signature  of  "A  Christian  Politician."      (Dr.  VV.'s  lib.) 

■°°  Abbey,  Eng.  Ch.  and  Bishops,  Vol.  I,  p.  214;  Lecky,  Vol.  I,  p.  285  ;  Jeivish 
Year  Book,  1 896-7,  pp.  129  f. 
"^'  Year  Book,  1896-7. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  I  23 

In  this  age  [the  writer  says]  it  is  still  necessary  to  prove  that  the  wrath  of 
man  worketh  not  the  righteousness  of  God.  Streams  of  blood,  desert  coun- 
tries, unanswered  arguments,  slowly  teach  men  who  are  in  possession  of  power, 
that  Providence  takes  better  methods  for  the  Propagation  of  the  true  religion, 
than  can  be  expected  from  the  interference  of  its  creatures In  plead- 
ing for  the  Catholics  I  shall  offend  many  Dissenters ;  and  in  pleading  for  the 
Jews  I  shall  offend  many  Dissenters  and  Catholics.     (Preface.) 

This  collection  contains  articles  and  testimonies  from  Bishop 
Hoadley,  Archdeacon  Paley,  John  Locke,  Sir  William  Temple, 
Dr.  Franklin,  the  Earl  of  Mansfield,  Addison,  and  man}-  others. 
From  this  it  appears  that  the  advocacy  of  a  true  liberty  of  con- 
science had  become  quite  common.  It  is  also  seen  that  many 
dissenters  were  as  yet  unwilling  to  concede  it. 

During  the  first  half  of  the  century  the  Presbyterian,  Con- 
gregational, and  Baptist  denominations  united  to  obtain  relief 
from  the  laws  which  still  oppressed  them.  Previous  to  the 
Hanoverian  rule  the  Presbyterians  '°^  had  been  satisfied  with  the 
advantages  to  be  derived  from  occasional  conformity.  In  1732 
the  organization  of  the  "Dissenting  Deputies"  was  effected. 
All  churches  of  these  denominations  within  ten  miles  of  London 
were  requested  to  appoint  two  deputies.  The  first  general 
assembly  of  these  deputies  occurred  the  same  year.  This 
alliance  continued  to  exist  and  to  exert  a  powerful  influence  on 
the  government  for  many  decades.  Through  it  the  dissenters 
made  their  power  felt. 

Throughout  the  eighteeenth  and  nineteenth  centuries  the 
various  positions  taken  by  the  old  English  organizations  cannot 
be  discovered  or  set  forth  with  sufficient  accuracy  to  justify  an 
exhaustive  examination  of  the  literature  of  the  period.  The 
continual  change  in  the  conceptions  of  political  liberty  forced 
corresponding  changes  in  ideas  of  religious  liberty.  The  merest 
mention  of  the  footprints  of  this  evolution  alone  will  be  profit- 
able. 

102  'i  jf  fj^g  Presbyterians  had  been  possessed  of  anything  like  the  courage  and 
persistency  of  the  Quakers,  they  could  no  doubt  at  this  time  (1723)  have  pro- 
cured with  ease  the  repeal  of  the  Test  and  Corporation  laws.  While,  however,  they 
enjoyed  the  liberty  of  occasional  conformity  and  could  thus  qualify  for  office — join- 
ing the  Church,  that  is  to  say,  for  half  an  hour  every  year,  and  protesting  against  it 
during  the  remainder  of  their  12  months  of  office  —  they  appeared  to  think  that  they 
had  secured  all  that  was  needful  and  honorable."     (Skeats  and  Miall,  p.  254.) 


124  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

One  exception  to  this  general  statement,  however,  must  be 
made.  The  Baptists  did  not  change  their  views.  Their  leading 
thinkers  continued  to  present  the  same  doctrine  with  even 
greater  discrimination.  Robert  Robinson  declared  that 
Liberty  to  be  a  christian  implies  liberty  not  to  be  a  christian,  as  liberty  to 
examine  a  proposition  implies  liberty  to  reject  the  arguments  brought  to  sup- 
port it,  if  they  appear  inconclusive,  as  well  as  liberty  to  admit  them  if  they 
appear  demonstrative.  To  pretend  to  examine  Christianity,  before  we  have 
established  our  right  to  do  so,  is  to  pretend  to  cultivate  an  estate  before  we 
have  made  out  our  title  to  it.'°3 
Again  he  said  : 

Christianity  comes,  pretends  to  come  from  the  God  of  nature  ;  I  look  for 
analogy,  and  I  find  it  ;  but  I  find  it  in  the  holy  scriptures,  the  first  teachers, 
and  the  primitive  churches.  In  all  these  I  am  considered  a  rational  creature, 
objects  are  proposed,  evidence  is  offered  ;  if  I  admit  it,  I  am  not  entitled 
thereby  to  any  temporal  emoluments ;  if  I  refuse  it,  I  am  not  subjected  to 
any  temporal  punishments  :  the  whole  is  an  affair  of  conscience,  and  lies 
between  each  individual  and  his  God.  I  choose  to  be  a  christian  on  this  very 
account.  This  freedom,  which  I  call  a  perfection  of  my  nature  ;  this  self- 
determination,  the  dignity  of  my  species,  the  essence  of  my  natural  virtue, 
this  I  do  not  forfeit  by  becoming  a  christian  ;  this  I  retain,  explained,  con- 
firmed, directed,  assisted  by  the  legal  grant  of  the  Son  of  God.  Thus  the  pre- 
rogatives of  Christ,  the  laws  of  his  religion,  and  the  natural  rights  of 
mankind  being  analogous,  evidence  arises  of  the  divinity  of  the  religion  of 
Jesus. 

I  believe,  it  would  be  very  easy  to  prove,  that  the  Christianity  of  the 
church  of  Rome,  and  that  of  every  other  establishment,  because  they  are 
establishments,  are  totally  destitute  of  this  analogy  (p.  25). 

In  his  "Letter  on  Uniformity"  (p.  82)  Robinson  condemned 
in  sharp  language  the  attempt  to  force  a  national  religion: 

The  idea  of  uniformity  is  neither  the  idea  of  a  philosopher,  nor  of  a 
christian.  The  fabricature  of  this  law  [of  uniformity]  therefore  by  men  who 
had  a  just  right  to  both  these  titles  implies  a  moment's  absence. 

Sound  policy  requires  a  legislature  to  preserve  its  dignity;  but  the  dig- 
nity of  a  legislature  is  never  more  prostituted  than  when  impracticable  edicts 
are  issued.  The  dignity  of  legislation  depends  more  on  enforcing  than  on 
inventing  a  law  :  the  latter  may  be  done  by  a  pedant  in  his  study,  but  the  first 
must  have  power,  property,  magistracy,  penalty,  in  a  word,  authority  to  sup- 
port it ;  and  this  energy  is  its  dignity.  Where  a  tax  is  levied  which  the 
people  cannot  pay ;  where  a  kind  of  obedience  is  required  which  the  people 
cannot    yield ;  the    legislators    are    forced  to    dispense  with    the  obedience 

'°3  "  Reflections  on  Chr.  Lib.,"  p.  87,  in  Works,  Vol.  I. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  I  25 

required.  And  what  follows  ?  The  people  despise  a  folly  which  could  not 
foresee,  a  narrowness  of  capacity  which  could  not  comprehend,  a  timidity 
which  dare  not,  or  a  weakness  which  cannot  inforce  its  decrees. 

In  this  is  a  pointed  commentary  on  the  civil  difficulties  of 
the  English  government  from  the  Reformation  on.  Discussing 
magistracy  this  author  said  : 

Let  magistracy  originate  where  it  will,  let  it  proceed  from  nature,  from 
God  immediately,  from  the  people,  or  from  power,  it  is  immaterial  :  from 
none  of  these  sources  can  there  flow  a  right  over  the  consciences  of  the  sub- 
jects.'"^ 

Further,  on  the  subject  of  the  right  of  private  judgment  Rob- 
inson commented  as  follows  : 

Whence  church  governors  pretend  to  derive  this  right  [to  deny  private 
judgment]  does  not  signify.  It  can  neither  be  derived  from  the  nature  of 
Christianity,  the  doctrine  or  practise  of  Christ  or  his  apostles,  the  condition  of 
man  in  a  state  of  nature,  his  condition  as  a  member  of  society  subject  to 
magistracy,  nor  indeed  in  England  from  anything  but  the  act  of  supremacy, 
an  act  which  transferred  a  power  over  men's  consciences  from  the  pope  to 
the  king,  '"s 

Thus  thoughtfully  and  distinctly  did  Robinson  express  his 
position,  as  well  as  that  of  the  Baptists  in  general  in  the  latter 
half   of  the   eighteenth   century.      Andrew   Fuller'"^  and  Robert 

'"•t  Works,  Vol.  II,  p.  59.  '°5  Ibid.,  Vol.  II,  p.  41- 

'°6  Andrew  Fuller,  whose  life  was  largely  confined  to  the  last  half  of  the  eight- 
eenth century,  indicates  to  us  that  within  his  time  the  discussion  about  religious 
liberty  took  a  turn  which  is  frequently  seen  in  these  later  times.  He  says  :  "The 
right  of  private  judgment  in  matters  of  religion  appears  to  be  the  right  which 

EVERY  INDIVIDUAL  HAS  TO  THINK  AND  TO  AVOW  HIS  THOUGHTS  ON  THOSE  SUB- 
JECTS, WITHOUT    BEING    LIABLE   TO  ANY   CIVIL    INCONVENIENCE    ON    THAT  ACCOUNT. 

....  There  can  scarcely  be  any  doubt  remaining  with  respect  to  the  power  of  the 
civil  magistrate  to  interfere  with  the  religious  sentiments  and  private  judgment  of  the 
subject :  this  is  now  very  generally  and  justly  exploded.  But  of  late  the  subject  has 
taken  another  turn,  and  men  have  pleaded  not  only  an  exemption  from  civil  penalties 
on  account  of  tlieir  religious  principles,  in  which  the  very  essence  of  persecution  exists, 
but  also  that  they  are  not  subject  to  the  control  of  a  religious  society  with  which  they 
stand  connected  for  any  tenets  which  they  may  think  proper  to  avow.  The  right  of 
private  judgment  now  frequently  assumed  is  a  right  in  every  individual  who  may 
become  a  member  of  a  Christian  church  to  think  and  avow  his  thoughts,  be  they  what 
they  may,  7inthottt  being  subject  to  exclusion  or  admonition,  or  the  ill  opinion  of  his 

brethren  on  that  account But  this  appears  to  be  highly  extravagant,  and  is 

what  no  man  can  claim  as  a  right.  The  following  considerations  are  submitted  to  the 
reader.     First:  The   supposed  right  of  the  individual  is  contrary  to  the  principles  on 


126  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Hall  also  entered  into  the  production  of  sentiments  on  this  sub- 
ject, as  witness  Fuller's  "Inquiry  into  the  Right  of  Private 
Judgment  in  Matters  of  Religion,"  and  Hall's  "Apology  for  the 
Freedom  of  the  Press,"  and  his  "  Christianity  Consistent  with  a 
Love  of  Freedom  "  (found  in  their  "Works"). 

Through  a  period  of  comparative  quiescence,  rather  than  of 
ecclesiastical  debate,  the  Congregationalists  advanced  till  they 
also  became  advocates  of  a  real  liberty  of  conscience.  "  The  Con- 
fession of  Faith  of  the  Independent,"  by  Rev.  Job  Orton,  D.D., 
was  published  as  early  as  1 7 1 7.  He  expressed  his  thought  as  fol- 
lows :  "I  apprehend  that  no  man  or  body  of  men  whatever  has 
any  power  to  impose  any  articles  of  faith  or  modes  of  worship 
upon  others,  or  control  the  liberty  of  private  judgment." '°7  A 
little  over  a  century  after  this  (1833)  the  Congregational  Union 
of  England  and  Wales  expressed  itself  in  a  Declaration  of  Faith. 
In  this  the  power  of  the  Christian  church  is  said  to  be  purely 
spiritual,  "and  should  in  no  way  be  corrupted  by  union  with 
temporal  or  civil  power." '°^  The  time  at  last  arrived  when 
the  position  so  long  controverted  was  theoretically  admitted 
and  incorporated  in  the  authoritative  statements  of  Independ- 
ency. 

The  Presbyterian  denomination,  strongly  attached  to  its 
Westminster  Standard,  and  because  of  its  great  difficulties  aris- 
ing out  of  the  Unitarian  heresy,  was  still  slower  in  incorporating 
the  modern  conception  in  its  expression  of  doctrine.  The 
Westminster  Confession  is  decidedly  intolerant.  In  1784  the 
Newcastle  presbytery  adopted  a  "Formula"  which  stated  their 
position  in  the  following  words  : 

And  as  these  and  all  other  doctrines  which  we  believe  and  profess  are 
clearly  comprehended,  and   shortly  and   distinctly  summed   up   in   the  West- 

xvhich  Christian  churches 'cvere  01-iginally  fomided.  ....  Secondly:  Not  only  is  this 
supposed  right  of  private  judgment  inconsistent  with  apostolic  practise,  but  it  is  also 

contrary  to  reason  and  the  Jitness  of  things Farther:  If  a  christian  society  has 

no  right  to  withdraw  from  an  individual  whose  principles  they  consider  as  false  and 
injurious,  neither  has  an  individual  any  right  to  withdraw  from  a  society  in  a  similar 
case  :  and  then  there  is  an  end  to  all  religious  liberty  at  once."  {Works,  Vol.  V,  pp. 
215  f.) 

'°TCong.  Quar.,  July,  i860.  '"^schaff,  Creeds  of  Chr.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  743. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  I  27 

minster  Confession  of  Faith,"'  we   heartily  acknowledge  it  to  be  the  Confes- 
sion of  our  Faith."° 

This  confession  is  still  accepted  as  a  general  statement  of 
Presbyterian  doctrine  in  England.  The  present  (1899)  ^oxm  of 
subscription,"^  however,  makes  exception  to  the  clause  in  that 
document  which  stands  for  intolerance.  Evidence  is  not  at  hand 
to  show  that  this  exception  was  made  previous  to  the  revival  of 
English  Presbyterianism  in  1876. 

The  clergy  continued  to  be  divided  on  the  subject  of  tol- 
eration. A  bill  was  brought  forward  in  1721  to  increase  the 
stringency  against  antitrinitarian  writings.  It  was  supported  by 
the  archbishop  of  Canterbury  and  some  other  prelates.  It 
failed  to  pass."^  Swift,  the  renowned  dean  of  St.  Patrick's, 
issued  a  pamphlet  in  1732,  in  which  he  maintained  that  an  estab- 
lishment of  religion  is  essential  to  a  nation's  welfare.  He  said 
that  if  an  act  should  be  passed  to  establish  Presbyterianism, 
Independency,  or  any  other  form  of  ecclesiastical  government, 
without  question  all  subjects  ought  to  submit.  He  thought  that 
the  public  should  sustain   no  other  teachers  and  admit  to  office 

109 -Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,  chap,  xxiii,  sec.  iii :  "The  civil  magistrate 
may  not  assume  to  himself  the  administration  of  the  Word  and  Sacraments  or  the 
power  of  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;  yet  he  hath  authority,  and  it  is  his 
duty  to  take  order  that  unity  and  peace  be  preserved  in  the  Church,  that  the  truth  of 
God  be  kept  pure  and  entire,  that  all  blasphemies  and  heresies  be  suppressed,  all  cor- 
ruptions and  abuses  in  worship  and  discipline  prevented  or  reformed,  and  all  the  ordi- 
nances of  God  duly  settled,  administered  and  observed.  For  the  better  effecting 
whereof  he  hath  power  to  call  synods,  to  be  present  at  them,  and  to  provide  that 
whatsoever  is  transacted  in  them  be  according  to  the  mind  of  God."  (Schaff,  Creeds 
tj/C^r.,Vol.  Ill,  p.  653.) 

^'^°  Report  of  Proceedings  of  the  Second  Gen.  Conn,  of  the  Pres.  Alliance,  p.  1038. 

"'  The  existing  method  of  subscription  consists  in  returning  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  the  following  questions  appointed  to  be  put:  "To  Ministers  and  Elders:  Do  you 
sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  as 
in  accordance  with  the  teaching  of  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  do  you  consent  to  the  said 
Confession  as  the  Standard  by  which  your  teaching  (for  Elders  read  'the  public 
teaching')  in  this  Church  shall  be  judged ;  it  being  understood  in  reference  to  the 
teachings  of  the  Confession  of  Faith  regarding  the  duty  of  Civil  Rulers,  that  —  while 
holding  the  subjection  of  such  rulers,  in  their  own  province,  to  the  authority  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  —  you  are  not  required  to  accept  anything  in  that  document  which 
favours  or  may  be  regarded  as  favouring  intolerance  or  persecution?"  {Report  of 
Proceedings  of  Second  Gen.  Coun.  of  Pres.  Alliance,  p.  1037.) 

'"Lecky,  Eng.  in  XVIII  Cent.,  Vol.  I,  p.  361. 


128  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

no  other  persons  than  those  who  were  members  of  the  estab- 
lished church,  whatever  that  church  may  be. "3 

On  the  other  side,  we  find  that  when  Earl  Stanhope  intro- 
duced a  bill  into  the  House  of  Lords  for  the  repeal  of  the  Test 
Acts  (171 7)  he  was  strongly  supported  by  several  bishops. 
Bishop  Hoadly  spoke  eloquently  in  behalf  of  the  principles  of 
Christian  liberty,  maintaining  that  all  religious  tests  were  an 
abridgment  of  the  natural  rights  of  man,  an  injury  to  the  state, 
and  a  scandal  to  religion.  The  bishops  of  Gloucester  and  Lincoln 
also  spoke  in  behalf  of  the  measure.  Bishop  Kennet,  of  Peter- 
borough, was  especially  effective  in  his  utterances.  He  declared 
that  the  arbitrary  measures  of  persecution  adopted  in  the  past 
had  brought  contempt  on  the  clergy  and  disaster  to  the  state.'"* 

A  treatment  of  "Liberty,  Civil  and  Religious,"-  came  out  in 
London  in  181  5  (B.  M.  521,  h.  29).  Though  anonymous,  it  is 
evident  that  the  writer  was  a  churchman.  He  did  not  attempt  to 
advocate  liberty,  but  simply  to  indicate  some  of  its  boundaries. 
In  general  he  congratulated  England  on  her  forward  position 
relative  to  freedom.  After  referring  to  the  particular  position  of 
the  establishment,  he  said:  "Let  not  those  then  be  heard,  who 
affirm  that  the  Church  of  England  is  inimical  to  liberty."  The 
increasing  friendliness  of  the  churchmen  to  liberty  during  this 
period  did  not  arise  from  their  religious  conceptions.  It  was 
due  to  external  conditions.  Throughout  this  time  of  change  of 
sentiment,  which  has  amounted  to  a  revolution  of  thought,  the 
Thirt3^-nine  Articles  have  remained  stationary. 

The  state  of  the  contest  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth 
century  was  commented  upon  by  the  eminent  Unitarian,  Dr. 
Joseph  Priestley.  In  him  we  find  the  foremost  advocate  of 
liberty  among  the  Unitarians.      He  says  : 

The  subject  of  free  inquiry,  I  am  well  aware,  is  a  very  trite  one,  especially 
as  one  of  the  usual  topics  of  the  fifth  of  November,  on  which  it  is  customary 
to  call  the  attention  of  Protestants  to  the  use  of  reason  in  matters  of  religion, 
in  order  to  indicate  the  principles  of  the  Reformation  ;  and  also  further  to 
assert  our  liberty  of  dissenting  from  the  established  religion  of  this  country. 
This  has  been  done  so  often  that  it  may  seem  a  wornout  and  useless  topic."S 

"3  Cf.  Stoughton,  Vol.  XI,  p.  5.  "*  Cf.  Traill,  Social  Eng.,  Vol.  V,  p.  232. 

"5  The  Importance  and  Extent  of  Free  htquiry  in  Matters  of  Religion,  A  Sermon. 
(B.  M.  447.3,  c.  8  (10).) 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  AGITATION  I  29 

He  further  asserts  that 
The  times  in  which  we  live  are  unfavorable  to  free  incjuir)'  in  matters  of 
religion.  We  are  not,  indeed,  persecuted  for  our  religious  principles,  and  few 
persons  have  much  scruple  in  openly  declaring  what  they  think  ;  but  the 
influence  of  habit,  of  fashion  and  of  connections,  in  these  peaceable  times, 
is  such,  that  few  persons,  very  few  indeed,  have  the  courage  to  act  agreeably 
to  their  principles,  so  as  to  rank  themselves,  and  to  appear,  in  that  class  of 
men  to  which  they  belong.    (Pp.  37  f.) 

That  Dr.  Priestley  did  not  consider  political  disabilities  under 
the  head  of  persecution  is  evinced  by  a  "Letter  to  William  Pitt, 
on  the  subject  of  Toleration  and  Church  Establishments"  (B. 
M.  687,  g.(4)).  This  letter  was  called  forth  by  a  speech  of 
Pitt  in  opposition  to  the  repeal  of  the  Test  and  Corporation  Acts. 
In  it  he  argued  that  dissenters  would  not  be  dangerous  men  in 
office,  as  Pitt  supposed.  The  great  ruler  received  some  apt  and 
discriminating  advice  from  the  discerning  preacher: 

As  an  individual,  give  as  much  attention  to  religion  as  you  please,  but  as 
the  ostensible  prime  minister  of  this  country,  you  have  nothing  to  do  with  any 
life  beside  the  present  and  the  happiness  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  island 
in  it  (p.  5). 

I  have  even  no  doubt  but  that  as  Christianity  was  promulgated  and  pre- 
vailed in  the  world  without  any  aid  from  civil  power,  it  will,  when  it  shall 
have  recovered  its  pristine  vigour,  entirely  disengage  itself  from  such  an 
unnatural  alliance  as  it  is  at  present  fettered  with,  that  our  posterity  will  even 
look  back  with  astonishment  at  the  infatuation  of  their  ancestors,  in  imagin- 
ing that  things  so  wholly  different  from  each  other  as  Christianity  and  civil 
power  had  any  natural  connection  (p.  13). 

Dr.  Priestley  also  asserted  his  objection  to  the  demand  that  the 
university  students  subscribe  to  the  Thirty-nine  Articles.  He 
further  opposed  ecclesiastical  marriages  and  the  paying  of  tithes. 
It  is  interesting  to  note  in  connection  with  Priestley's  admis- 
sion that  persecution  was  past,  that  in  1791  the  Birmingham 
riots  occurred.  They  arose  from  the  hostility  of  the  populace 
to  the  Unitarians.  These  writings  had  aroused  Edmund  Burke 
to  reply  in  defense  of  the  establishment.  The  resulting  furor 
brought  much  persecution  to  these  people,  but  it  came  from  mob 
violence  rather  than  from  legal  force.  The  law  passed  during 
the  reign  of  William  III.,  proscribing  the  public  maintenance  of 
Socinian  opinions,  had  not  been  enforced  nor  repealed.      In  1792 


130  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

Fox  took  up  the  cause  of  the  Unitarians  and  proposed  the  repeal 
of  this  law.  He  claimed  the  same  toleration  for  them  as  was 
accorded  the  orthodox  nonconformists.  The  movement  was 
unsuccessful.  Only  in  1813  were  the  statute-books  purged  of 
this  blot. 

Several  attempts  were  made  to  do  away  with  subscription  to 
the  Thirty-Nine  iVrticles  by  nonconformist  ministers  and  school- 
masters. When  the  bill  for  this  was  reintroduced  in  1773, 
Edmund  Burke  assisted  in  its  advocacy.  When  he  was  told  that 
the  dissenters  could  expect  nothing  but  connivance,  he  replied 
with  indignation:  "What,  sir,  is  liberty  by  connivance  but  a 
temporary  relaxation  of  slavery?""^  This  matter  was  pressed 
again  in  1779  by  Sir  Henry  Hoghton,  and  this  time  was  suc- 
cessful in  part.  The  conditions  were  still  imposed  to  the 
extent  that  all  ministers  and  schoolmasters  must  be  Christians 
and  Protestants. "7 

The  nation's  intolerant  attitude  toward  atheism  was  most  per- 
sistently continued.  There  was  a  very  general  antipathy  to  it. 
Atheists  were  few  in  number,  and  hence  few  advocates  arose  to 
give  special  attention  to  their  rights.  In  1 880  their  political  rights 
began  to  be  demanded  by  many  who  were  aroused  by  the  Brad- 
laugh  incident.  Elected  to  Parliament  for  Northampton,  Charles 
Bradlaugh,  an  atheistic  and  radical  journalist,  pleaded  that  he 
had  the  right  to  affirm  instead  of  being  sworn  by  the  parliamen-- 
tary  oath.  This  was  denied,  as  also  was  his  right  to  be  sworn 
at  all.  He  presented  himself  repeatedly,  and  carried  the  matter 
to  the  courts,  but  was  not  successful  until  1885,  when  he  was 
reelected  by  his  constituency.  On  taking  his  seat  he  was  instru- 
mental in  securing  the  adoption  of  an  af^rmation-bill. 

The  most  noteworthy  advocacy  of  this  cause  in  recent  times 
was  that  of  John  Stuart  Mill.  In  his  "  Essay  on  Liberty  "  is  to  be 
seen  the  trend  of  modern  thought.  Neither  religious  nor  politi- 
cal arguments  predominate  in  it.  The  well-being  of  society  is 
most  prominent.  He  limits  his  argument  to  that  which  arises 
from  general  utility,  regarding  utility  as  the  ultimate  appeal  in  all 

"6  Cf.  May,  Constitutional  Hist.,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  93. 

"7STOUGHTON,  Vol.  VI,  p.   1 56. 


PERIOD  OF  POLITICAL  A  GITA  TION  I  3  I 

ethical  questions.  General  utility,  he  contends,  authorizes  the 
subjection  of  individual  spontaneity  to  external  control  only  in 
respect  to  those  actions  of  each  which  concern  the  interests  of 
other  people  (p.  25).  He  holds  that  this  freedom  is  yet 
unattained  (1858).  The  constraint  he  does  not  attribute  so 
much  to  governmental  pressure  as  to  public  opinion. 

He  urges  that  all  thought  should  be  submitted  to  discussion, 
because  "the  beliefs  which  we  have  most  warrant  for,  have  no 
safeguard  to  rest  on,  but  a  standing  invitation  to  the  whole 
world  to  prove  them  unfounded"  (pp.  42  f.).  Leaving  the  lists 
open  he  regards  as  the  only  way  of  gaining  infallibility.  The 
failure  of  good  men  in  the  past  to  attain  infallibility  must  decrease 
our  assurance  as  to  our  own  beliefs.  Nor  is  there  a  certainty 
that  truth  will  prevail.  "It  is,"  he  says,  "a  piece  of  idle  senti- 
mentality that  truth,  merely  as  truth,  has  any  inherent  power 
denied  to  error,  of  prevailing  against  the  dungeon  and  the  stake" 
(p.  55).  All  that  we  know  is  that  it  will  be  rediscovered  in  time. 
And  "it  is  not  the  minds  of  heretics  that  are  deteriorated  most 
by  the  ban  placed  on  all  inquiry  which  does  not  end  in  the 
orthodox  conclusions.  The  greatest  harm  is  done  to  those  who 
are  not  heretics,  and  whose  whole  mental  development  is  cramped, 
and  their  reason  cowed,  by  the  fear  of  heresy"  (p.  62).  A  true 
opinion,  held  simply  as  a  prejudice  and  without  proof,  he  brands 
as  but  one  superstition  more  which  accidentally  clings  to  the  words 
that  enunciate  a  truth.  More,  "he  who  knows  only  his  side  of 
the  case  knows  little  of  that"  (p.  68).     Still  further: 

All  ethical  doctrines  and  religious  creeds  are  full  of  meaning  and  vitality 
to  those  who  originate  them,  and  to  the  direct  disciples  of  the  originators. 
Their  meaning  continues  to  be  felt  in  undiminished  strength,  and  is  perhaps 
brought  out  into  even  fuller  conscientiousness,  so  long  as  the  struggle  lasts  to 
give  the  doctrine  or  creed  ascendency  over  other  creeds  (p.  73). 

Mill  holds  popular  opinions  to  be  unreliable,  for,  while  they  may 
contain  truth,  they  are  but  seldom,  if  ever,  the  whole  truth.  He 
mentions  that  in  politics  "it  is  almost  a  common-place,  that  a 
party  of  order  or  stability,  and  a  party  of  reform  or  progress, 
are  both  necessary  elements  of  a  healthy  state  of  a  political  life." 
In  his  chapter  on  "Individuality"  as  one  of  the  elements  of 
well-being  he  advances  the  following  considerations  : 


132  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

In  proportion  to  the  development  of  his  individuality,  each  person  becomes 
more  valuable  to  himself,  and  is  therefore  capable  of  being  more  valuable  to 

others Whatever   crushes    individuality    is    despotism,    by  whatever 

name  it  may  be  called There  is  always  need  of  persons,  not  only  to 

discover  new  truths  but  also  to  commence  new  practises,  and  set  the  example 
of  more  enlightened  conduct Genius  can  only  breathe  in  an  atmos- 
phere of  freedom. 

As  to  the  limits  of  society's  authority  over  the  individual  he 
says  : 

To  individuality  should  belong  the  part  of  life  in  which  it  is  chiefly  the  indi- 
vidual that  is  interested;  to  society  the  part  that  chiefly  interests  society.  .  .  . 
Encroachment  on  their  rights  ;  infliction  on  them  of  any  loss  or  damage  not 
justified  by  his  own  rights;  falsehoods  or  duplicity  in  dealing  with  them; 
unfair  or  ungenerous  use  of  advantages  over  them ;  even  selfish  abstinence 
from  defending  them  against  injury  —  these  are  fit  objects  of  moral  reproba- 
tion, and,  in  grave  cases,  of  moral  retribution  and  punishment. 

In  respect  to  that  which  lies  beyond  the  realm  of  social  concern 
he  asserted  finally  that  "the  strongest  of  all  arguments  against 
the  interference  of  the  public  with  purely  personal  conduct,  is 
that  when  it  does  interfere,  the  odds  are  that  it  interferes  wrongly 
and  in  the  wrong  place." 

As  a  literary  work  this  essay  is  remarkable.  It  is  profound 
and  discriminating,  and  withal  exceedingly  clear.  It  is  truly  a 
masterpiece.  In  seeking  a  line  of  argument  that  would  appeal 
to  the  largest  number,  the  author  took  no  cognizance  of  the  more 
restricted  hypotheses  which  had  been  placed  as  foundations  of 
the  former  theories.  Broader  than  existing  Christianity,  he  has 
made  his  premises  as  universal  as  the  needs  of  men.  Hence  he 
has  sought  the  fullest  right  of  private  judgment.  No  meaner 
motive  than  the  welfare  of  men  inspired  him. 


CONCLUSION. 

Hitherto  our  task  has  been  to  set  forth  the  facts  which  have 
been  most  important  in  this  English  contest  for  the  right  of  pri- 
vate judgment.  The  polemical  literature  of  the  subject  has  fur- 
nished the  most  trustworthy  information.  The  contest  was  by  no 
means  wholly  a  literary  one.  For  definite  facts,  however,  we 
are  driven  to  the  treatises,  together  with  public  addresses  which 
have  gotten  into  print.  We  may  assume  with  somewhat  of  con- 
fidence that  the  preachers  of  a  denomination  advocated  from 
the  pulpit  what  the  denomination  expressed  in  its  confessions. 
Further,  we  may  safely  hold  that  the  vigor  of  a  denomination's 
advocacy  was  commensurate  with  the  strength  of  its  confes- 
sional statements,  and  the  frequency  and  boldness  of  personal 
literary  efforts  of  its  members.  Yet  it  is  not  for  the  historian 
to  assume.  The  indisputable  evidence  alone  can  rightly  guide 
us  in  our  deductions  and  generalizations.  It  becomes  our  task 
here  to  reconsider  the  courses  of  thought  already  traced  and 
briefly  summarize  them,  locating  as  accurately  as  possible  the 
different  factors.  Our  examination  will  be  in  respect  to  ideals, 
motives,  and  comparative  effectiveness.  It  is  obvious  that  we 
must  be  satisfied  with  the  merest  approximation.  Doubtless 
many  elements  entered  the  contest  of  which  we  have  no  sug- 
gestion, at  least  no  complete  apprehension.  Our  standard  for 
judgment  must  necessarily  be  the  highest  and  clearest  thought 
of  the  present  day.  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  outline  this 
in  the  "Introduction." 

From  the  very  Reformation  period  the  English  Anabaptists 
rejected  every  human  authority  over  the  conscience.  They 
were  indeed  the  radicals  of  the  Reformation.  By  the  authori- 
ties they  were  held  to  be  anarchists.  And  according  to  English 
laws  they  were  such.  The  claims  of  the  national  ecclesiastical 
laws  they  denied  entirely.  To  the  courts  of  the  sixteenth  cen- 
tury this  was   as   anarchistic   as  to   repudiate  civil  law.      In  fact, 

133 


134  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

the  terms  "civil"  and  "ecclesiastical"  were  not  yet  generally 
used  with  discrimination.  By  churchmen  this  refusal  to  admit 
the  magistrate's  ecclesiastical  function  was  regarded  worse  than 
a  refusal  to  recognize  his  civil  function.  Murder  was  a  crime 
against  the  body;  heresy  was  a  crime  against  the  soul.  Ana- 
baptists were  not  only  among  the  heretics  of  the  day,  and  there- 
fore propagators  of  a  heresy,  but  they  held  that  difference  of 
opinion  was  right  and  should  be  allowed.  What  others  called 
blasphemous  they  called  Christian.  They  firmly  opposed,  not 
only  what  was  then  termed  orthodoxy,  but  also  every  unpro- 
gressive  orthodoxy.  They  admitted  the  capacity  of  the  human 
mind  to  expand,  and  the  possibility  of  obtaining  clearer  per- 
ceptions of  divine  truth.  This  was  destined  to  herald  the 
revolution  of  political  and  ecclesiastical  thought  among  Anglo- 
Saxons,  and  even  the  abolishment  of  its  very  axioms.  Differing 
fundamentally  from  the  prevailing  ideas,  the  foreign  concep- 
tion conquered,  not  because  it  was  alien,  but  because  it  was 
Christian. 

This  assertion  of  individualism  was  too  strongly  emphasized 
at  first.  It  led  to  a  neglect  of  the  social  and  governmental. 
For  a  time  there  was  an  unwillingness  to  take  oaths  or  accept 
a  governmental  position.  The  magistrate  was  never  denied  his 
civil  function,  but  an  incompatibility  was  thought  to  exist 
between  magistracy  and  Christianity.  By  the  beginning  of  the 
seventeenth  century  this  had  passed  away,  and  all  proper  author- 
ity was  accorded  to  the  national  government.  Passive  submis- 
sion was  ever  conceded  by  these  people,  in  every  particular,  but 
by  protest  they  displayed  their  antagonism  to  a  religious  des- 
potism. Though  no  enormities  are  accredited  to  the  English 
Anabaptists,  in  this  early,  formative,  and  somewhat  obscure 
period,  they  were  misunderstood.  The^  sins  of  certain  conti- 
nental heretics,  who  were  popularly  classed  as  their  fellows,  were 
expatiated  upon  so  as  to  reflect  upon  them.  The  violent  opposi- 
tion to  them  by  churchmen  is  easily  accounted  for  by  the  con- 
tradiction which  their  principles  presented  to  ecclesiasticism. 
This  led  to  the  unsavory  association  mentioned.  The  temporary 
over-emphasis  of  individualism,  while  an  occasion  for  ill-feeling 


CONCL  USION  I  3  5 

on  the  part  of  the  government,  was  never  more  undesirable  than 
the  similar  over-emphasis  of  the  Quakers  at  a  much  later  date. 

They  sought  an  opportunity  to  hold  and  propagate  their 
peculiar  views,  but  they  denied  the  same  opportunity  to  none. 
They  even  urged  that  all  Protestants  be  free  in  the  exercise  of 
their  faith.  Further  still,  the  hated  Papists  were  also  included 
in  this  list.  And  to  the  utter  astonishment  of  the  community 
at  large,  they  boldly  declared  that  Jews  and  Turks  and  infidels 
had  the  same  rights.  The  political  ruler  was  stripped  of  his 
authority  over  the  conscience.  This  high  ideal,  once  accepted 
by  the  English  Anabaptists,  was  retained.  The  Baptists,  their 
lineal  descendants,  turned  not  to  the  right  hand  nor  the  left,  but 
followed  in  the  footsteps  of  their  progenitors.  Though  but  few 
of  them  were  learned  or  gifted,  they  made  a  very  respectable 
showing  in  the  production  of  favorable  sentiment.  Never  a 
numerous  people,  they  were  for  many  decades  prominent  and 
isolated  in  their  advocacy  of  this  tenet.  Their  isolation  was 
then  relieved  by  the  rise  of  partial  sympathizers  and  helpers. 
For  at  least  two  and  one-half  centuries  these  people  were  under 
the  ban  of  the  religious  public  of  England.  They  were  regarded 
as  heretics,  blasphemers,  and  visionaries.  Their  views  were  felt 
to  be  destructive  to  national  government  and  ecclesiastical  order. 
Their  conduct  gained  them  a  reputation  for  inoffensiveness  and 
sobriety.  In  time  they  became  ranked  with  the  safer  noncon- 
formists. Their  greatest  offense  was  that  they  were  leaders  of 
thought  in  the  realm  of  the  governmental.  They  dared  to  differ 
from  others  in  that  they  applied  Christian  teaching  to  civil  life. 
The  greatness  of  the  crime  for  which  they  were  condemned  was 
in  proportion  to  their  distance  in  advance  of  their  contempo- 
raries. 

The  ideal  or  ideals  of  the  Independents  cannot  be  expressed 
so  easily  or  so  accurately.  From  a  position  that  was  as  intol- 
erant as  their  scheme  of  church  democracy  would  allow,  they 
advanced  step  by  step,  until  they,  too,  embraced  the  heathen  in 
their  charity.  This  change  of  doctrine  in  the  case  of  the  Inde- 
pendents, as  of  Episcopalians  and  Presbyterians,  was  not  by 
evolution,   but    by  attrition.       It    did    not    proceed    from    their 


136  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

fundamental  views  or  hypotheses,  and  in  that  way  come  at  last 
into  outward  expression.  Their  doctrine  of  coercion  was  worn  off 
by  the  friction  of  civil  experiences.  To  make  their  later  posi- 
tion consistent  requires  a  change  in  their  underlying  principle. 
The  decidedly  non-Christian  premise  which  sustained  a  super- 
structure of  coercion  is  out  of  harmony  with  the  Christian  view 
of  full  liberty.  The  Brownists  and  their  successors,  the  Congre- 
gationalists,  shifted  the  responsibility  for  decision  in  particular 
doctrines  from  the  magistrate  to  the  independent  church,  for 
they  rejected  bishops  and  prelates,  holding  that  the  congrega- 
tions of  Christians  should  find  the  truth  and  set  it  forth.  The 
ruler  was  then  responsible  for  making  selection  of  this  as  the 
true  church.  Having  made  this  right  selection,  the  state  was  to 
enforce  the  laws  of  the  church.  It  was  to  support  the  church 
from  its  treasury,  to  protect  it  from  its  opponents,  and  to 
advance  its  interests  by  punishing  blasphemy  and  heresy  with 
the  sword.  Rejecting  the  prevailing  notion  that  the  magistrate 
was  entirely  responsible  for  the  salvation  of  his  subjects,  they 
divided  the  responsibility  between  the  religious  body  and  the 
civil  ruler.  The  ruler  was  the  arm  of  the  church.  He  was 
thought  of  by  them  as  a  civil  attachment  to  the  ecclesiastical 
organization.  He  was  denied  the  spiritual  functions  of  teacher 
and  priest,  or  mediator.  Instead  of  being  a  bishop  of  the 
bishops,  he  was  to  be  instructed  by  the  church.  Since  his  eccle- 
siastical duties  consisted  merely  in  executive  acts,  they  were 
called  civil  duties.  This  conception  arose  with  Robert  Browne 
and  prevailed  among  the  Independents  for  a  century.  From 
this  it  follows  that  the  Independents  were  tolerationists. 
According  to  them  individuals  had  no  rights.  All  rights  were 
inherent  in  the  church  and  the  king.  The  church  monopolized 
the  thinking  and  laid  the  boundaries  beyond  which  no  one 
could  go  without  being  punished.  Here  was  but  another  shift 
of  authority.  From  the  pope  it  had  come  to  the  king.  Now 
the  Independents  would  transfer  a  part  of  the  identical  preroga- 
tives from  the  king  to  their  less  centralized  ecclesiastical  organi- 
zation. No  less  authoritv  over  the  mind  was  assumed.  The 
boundaries   thev  extended   from   time   to   time.      Being  heretics 


CONCLUSION  137 

also,  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  their  antipathy  toward  heresy 
in  the  abstract  was  greater  than  toward  their  fellow-heretics. 
They  tended  to  make  a  distinction  between  dangerous  and  harm- 
less differences  of  opinion.  Somewhat  early  they  became  broad 
enough  to  concede  a  place  to  the  Presbyterians  and  the  Baptists. 
With  these  they  must  make  common  cause  to  stem  the  tide  of 
conformity.  At  last,  when  the  views  of  the  nation  were  enlarged, 
they  admitted  that  persecution  had  no  place  in  the  Christian  sys- 
tem. They  were,  in  fact,  the  leading  tolerationists,  and  the}- 
were  ever  in  the  van  of  the  hosts  that  sought  a  liberty  to  which 
they  claimed  no  title  based  on  universal  principles  of  right. 

Whatever  merit  this  view  had  lay  in  the  fact  that  many 
Christian  men  are  included  in  the  council  which  decides  what 
the  religious  belief  of  the  nation  ought  to  be.  The  king  still 
had  a  decision  to  make,  but  only  in  respect  to  what  system 
should  be  enforced.  The  Congregational  church  was  to  work 
out  the  system.  That  Christian  men  should  be  the  interpreters 
of  Christian  law  is  self-evident ;  though  it  is  not  clear  that  their 
interpretations  should  be  forced  upon  unbelievers.  The  state- 
ment that  the  combined  results  of  the  investigation  of  thousands 
will  be  more  accurate  than  the  decisions  of  an  individual  needs 
no  discussion.  Its  demerit  was  in  the  assumptions  that  com- 
paratively few  Christian  men  should  do  the  religious  thinking 
for  all  England  ;  that  Protestantism  after  their  t3'pe,  or  that  even 
Christianity  in  any  form,  must  monopolize  Englishmen  ;  that 
the  church  was  accountable  for  the  salvation  of  the  nation  ;  and 
that  coercion  was  a  means  of  grace. 

The  Quakers  came  late  upon  the  scene  of  action,  yet  not  so 
late  as  to  be  unnoticed  in  their  advocacy  of  complete  religious 
freedom.  They  maintained  a  long  and  vigorous  fight.  In  their 
thought  there  were  no  limitations.  No  one  had  a  right  to  tol- 
erate. With  the  Baptists,  they  held  that  the  government  existed 
for  the  people.  Like  the  early  Anabaptists,  they  had  religious 
notions  which  conflicted  with  practical  political  life.  They 
refused  to  take  oaths  and  to  enter  the  army,  and  paid  tithes 
only  on  being  forced  by  legal  process.  The  lack  of  clearness 
and  fulness  in  most  of  the  statements  of  their  doctrine  tends  to 


138  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

show  that  they  adopted  rather  than  worked  out  their  position. 
They  were  not  the  pioneers  in  this  territory  of  thought.  Then 
also  they  came  into  being  when  regal  despotism  was  writhing 
under  the  chastisement  of  an  exasperated  public.  Charles  II. 
was  being  taught  that  not  all  power  in  the  nation  could  be 
depended  on  to  support  his  doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings. 
The  conditions  rendered  it  easy  and  natural  for  them  to  adopt 
the  most  radical  view  of  the  times. 

The  Episcopalian  establishment  was  Roman  Catholicism 
reformed,  but  only  to  the  first  degree.  That  reformation  made 
the  magistrate  the  head  of  the  church.  To  avoid  the  pope's 
interference  with  civil  matters,  King  Henry  VIII.  assumed  the 
functions  claimed  by  the  pope.  To  secure  the  salvation  of  his 
subjects  was  then  reckoned  a  duty  of  the  ruler.  This  high  and 
important  end  should  be  gained  by  printing  Bibles,  instructing 
the  people  in  the  orthodox  doctrines  and  ceremonies ;  and, 
finally,  by  coercion. 

The  Episcopalians  did  not  hold  that  forcing  the  body  saved 
the  soul.  Some  contended  that  it  stirred  up  the  unthinking  to 
examine  the  foundations  of  their  faith.  Some  regarded  perse- 
cution as  a  healthy  reminder  of  the  ill  effects  of  incorrect  think- 
ing. Great  stress  was  laid  on  the  necessity  for  uniformity  in 
religion.  The  purpose  to  be  gained  by  this  was  political,  not 
religious.  The  nation's  peace  was  supposed  to  be  at  stake. 
Religious  wars  were  rife  on  the  continent.  They  argued  that  if 
they  could  avoid  disagreement  of  thought  they  would  avoid  civil 
strife.  The  salvation  of  the  state  was  regarded  as  the  chief  end 
of  Christianity.  The  interests  of  the  many  should  not  be  sacri- 
ficed to  the  unreasonable  desires  of  the  few.  To  differ  from  the 
policy  of  the  state  was  unreasonable  and  dangerous.  Therefore 
the  schismatic  should  be  dealt  with  by  the  magistrate  to  preserve 
the  state.  In  this  view  the  lives  of  men  were  depreciated,  their 
personal  interests  disregarded,  and  the  Christian  doctrine  of 
religious  liberty  set  aside.  From  this  position  a  large  part  of 
the  church  advanced  in  its  thought.  The  movement,  however, 
was  not  uniform,  nor  was  it  at  all  general  until  the  subject  came 
to   be    considered    politically.      Even    then    the  majority  of   the 


CONCLUSION  139 

clergy  continued  their  opposition.  The  advance  that  was  made 
was  consistent  with  the  stand  already  taken.  The  foundations 
of  their  theory  remained  undisturbed.  Its  application  was  not 
carried  so  far. 

The  Presbyterians,  from  their  early  Puritan  stage,  accepted 
the  prerogatives  of  the  magistrate.  They  did  not  protest  against 
the  doctrines  of  the  establishment,  nor  did  they  come  under  the 
head  of  sectaries.  They  sought  reforms  in  morals,  ceremonies, 
and  church  order.  While  deposing  bishops,  they  did  not  desire 
to  disturb  the  magistrate.  The  state  was  expected  to  convene 
synods  and  to  control  their  action.  Holding  tenaciously  to  the 
belief  that  they  were  right,  and  that  wrong  was  not  to  be  toler- 
ated, they  were  consistent  persecutors  when  in  power,  and  oppo- 
nents of  liberty  always.  They  differed  but  little  from  the 
establishment.  At  one  time  they  went  so  far  as  to  seek  reen- 
trance  into  that  organization.  Their  concern  was  to  preserve 
order  in  the  religious  world.  To  this  end  the  rights  of  men 
were  sacrificed  and  the  kingdom  of  God  belittled.  Though  these 
views  were  doubtless  modified  previous  to  the  nineteenth  cen- 
tury, the  authoritative  doctrinal  statements  give  no  evidence  of 
such  change  until  very  recent  years. 

In  accounting  for  the  existence  of  these  varying  ideals  we 
are  forced  into  a  consideration  of  the  theological  principles  of 
the  classes  represented.  Far  the  most  important  stage  in  this 
controversy  was  the  religious  stage.  Though  the  practical  and 
the  political  were  ever  considered.  Scripture  interpretations  sup- 
plied the  impetus  which  put  the  contestants  into  the  struggle. 
Nor  did  the  subject  shift  into  the  political  arena  until  the  arbiter 
of  philosophic  thought,  John  Locke,  had  accepted  the  theologi- 
cal hypothesis  of  the  radical  Baptists. 

The  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  Old  Testament  as  a  rule 
of  faith  and  practice  for  Christians  made  the  primary  division  in 
respect  to  this  subject.  The  peculiar  position  of  the  Baptists 
was  the  logical  outcome  of  finding  their  testimony  in  the  New 
Testament  and  their  example  in  Christ.  Neither  Moses  nor 
David  nor  Josiah  impressed  them  as  being  examples  to  Christian 
magistrates.     They  recognized  Christ  as  inaugurating  a  new  era. 


MO  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

and  as  inculcating  new  principles.  They  held  that  Christ  had 
become  their  spiritual  King.  The  Old  Testament  was  not 
rejected  by  them  as  history,  but  as  Christian  law.  Moses  might 
persecute,  they  thought,  but  Christ  did  not.  The  Jewish  order 
might  stone  the  blasphemer;  not  so  the  Christian  church.  The 
Episcopalian  and  Presbyterian  argued  the  king's  religious  preroga- 
tives from  Hebrew  history.  He  not  only  might,  but  he  must, 
secure  his  people  from  idolatry,  as  Josiah  did.  His  chief  care  was 
to  be  the  souls  of  men.  They  gathered,  also,  that  since  Israelitish 
kings  made  their  nation  righteous  by  coercion,  and  righteousness 
procured  salvation,  English  kings  could  procure  the  salvation 
of  Englishmen  in  the  same  manner.  This  resulted  in  the  gov- 
ernment becoming  an  instrument  for  the  production  of  Christians 
and  the  peopling  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

Further,  the  theory  that  the  church  was  identical  with  the 
nation  is  an  Old  Testament  conception.  The  Baptists  urged  the 
"Parable  of  the  Tares,"  holding  that  the  "field"  is  the  world. 
The  Episcopalians  and  the  Puritans  identified  the  "field"  with 
the  church.  From  the  hypothesis  of  a  national  church  the  idea 
of  uniformity  readily  springs.  A  church  must  not  be  divided  in 
thought  or  practice.  Quite  contrary  to  this  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment idea  that  a  church  is  a  congregation  of  persons  related 
spiritually  to  Christ.  With  the  nation  as  the  church,  persecution 
was  merely  discipline.  And  chastisement  was  a  divine  means  of 
promoting  salvation. 

The  rejection  of  infant  baptism  by  Baptists  was  one  with 
their  rejection  of  the  national  church.  Since  salvation  was  to 
be  obtained  by  individual  faith,  it  did  not  come  through  birth 
and  ceremony.  The  infant  did  not  become  regenerate  by  the 
priestly  performance,  nor  did  it  become  so  by  later  instruction, 
and  therefore  it  was  not  a  member  of  Christ's  church.  They 
held  that  instruction  was  the  only  means  in  the  possession  of 
men  by  which  they  could  be  instrumental  in  effecting  the  salva- 
tion of  others.  To  them  the  effect  of  persecution  was  to  take 
away  by  death  the  possibility  of  repentance,  or  at  least  to  harden 
the  heart  against  the  Christian  religion. 


CONCLUSION  141 

Thus  these  two  opposing  views  arose  logically  from  just  as 
different  theological  premises.  The  stand  of  the  Independents 
resulted  from  a  middle  position.  They  held,  with  the  conserva- 
tives, that  the  examples  of  the  Old  Testament  rulers  were  to  be 
followed  by  the  Christian  magistrate  of  England,  at  least  to  a 
certain  extent.  He  was  to  look  to  the  religious  interests  of  the 
state.  He  was  not,  however,  to  be  the  means  through  which 
revelation  should  reach  the  people.  In  the  gospel  dispensation 
the  church  was  charged  with  that  duty.  The  church  was  a  con- 
gregational body.  No  diocesan  or  ruling  bishops  were  conceded. 
This  mongrel  conception  of  toleration  arose  from  an  attempt  to 
reconcile  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  a  religious  magistracy  with 
the  gospel  conception  of  a  church.  The  Independents  did  not 
go  so  far  as  to  repudiate  the  state  church ;  they  simply  subjected 
the  state  to  the  church.  Detecting  the  un-Christian  elements  in 
the  Episcopalian  hierarchy,  they  shrank  from  it,  but  for  the  peace 
and  order  of  the  commonwealth  they  feared  to  do  away  with  all 
human  authority.  Having  done  away  with  bishops,  the  magis- 
trate was  the  only  logical  candidate  for  this  power.  The  sub- 
ordination of  the  interests  of  the  individual  to  the  state,  in  their 
estimate,  outweighed  many  other  considerations. 

In  an  examination  of  the  motives  which  animated  the  differ- 
ent classes  of  contestants  in  this  struggle  it  is  seen  that  a  multi- 
tude of  combinations  exist.  All  classes  made  large  use  of  the 
lower  motives.  The  only  comparison  which  will  yield  results  can 
be  made  in  answering  the  question  :  What  classes  arose  to  the 
highest  point  in  their  employment  of  motives  ?  The  time  came 
when  political  interests  predominated  generally.  In  this  period 
we  shall  not  be  so  successful  in  making  comparisons.  The  Ana- 
baptists and  Baptists,  to  whom  is  due  the  origin  of  the  move- 
ment, laid  stress  upon  the  example  of  Christ.  He  restrained 
the  exasperated  disciples  who  would  have  the  unbelieving 
Samaritans  destroyed.  They  held  up  the  teaching  of  Jesus.  The 
Parable  of  the  Tares  was  often  recited.  Christ,  too,  was  the 
"  Shepherd  "  and  "Savior  ;  "  how  could  he  kill  or  injure  ?  New 
Testament  history  and  apostolic  instructions  were  cited  freely. 
They  contended   that  the  gospel  was  to  usher  in  a  reign  of  faith 


142  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

and  liberty  rather  than  of  fear  and  coercion.  Again,  they 
regarded  truth,  if  unrestrained,  able  to  gain  its  own  victory. 
God  did  not  need  the  statutes  or  armies  of  men  to  force  truth 
upon  the  world.  Then  they  grasped  the  idea  of  individualism. 
The  responsibility  of  the  individual  to  God  endowed  him  with 
inherent  rights.  Christ  had  respected  these  rights.  The  state 
ought  to  do  so,  for  such  recognition  would  not  be  incompatible 
with  the  true  functions  of  the  state.  They  held  that  persecution 
would  make  evangelization  impossible.  Even  the  heretic,  if  not 
destroyed  by  coercion,  would  be  driven  out  of  the  reach  of 
gospel  preaching.  Compulsion,  they  thought,  was  not  directed 
against  suitable  objects  to  indicate  sincerity.  If  it  had  been 
aimed  against  immorality,  it  would  have  found  more  favor  with 
them.  In  their  estimation,  to  seek  conformity  was  to  encourage 
hypocrisy.  They  rejected  the  saving  power  of  the  sacraments, 
believing  that  salvation  was  for  the  obedient  believer.  Further, 
to  "  try  the  spirits,"  in  order  to  see  whether  they  were  of  God, 
necessitated  the  existence  of  differing  "spirits,"  which  unifor- 
mity made  impossible.  They  argued  that  they  could  neither 
know  nor  do  the  will  of  God  without  freedom  of  conscience. 
In  their  desire  to  leave  no  stone  unturned,  they  cited  testimony 
in  favor  of  such  freedom,  claimed  the  fulfilment  of  the  royal 
promises,  and  oftentimes  laid  great  stress  upon  the  severity  of 
their  own  sufferings. 

In  the  case  of  the  Independents  the  motives  never  ranged  so 
high.  Their  pleas  for  toleration  were  usually  on  the  ground  of 
policy.  It  would  be  advantageous  to  the  nation  to  "give  the 
people  content."  There  would  be  greater  devotion  to  a  lenient 
nation.  The  dissenters  could  not  be  expected  to  be  attached 
to  a  government  which  despoiled  their  goods  and  sought  their 
lives.  They  laid  their  stress  upon  the  denial  of  the  govern- 
mental advantages  of  a  rigid  conformity.  They  believed  in  a 
conformity,  but  they  would  hold  the  reins  more  loosely.  Chris- 
tians whose  doctrines  and  practices  were  reasonably  near  their 
standard  should  be  undisturbed.  Any  distress  to  such  was  sure 
to  weaken  the  nation's  support.  It  was  a  Christian  state,  and 
should  have  the  sympathy  and  backing  of  Christians. 


CONCL  USION  1 4  3 

An  argument  from  particular  fitness,  that  is,  likeness  to  the 
predominant  church  in  all  essentials,  was  pressed  with  persistence. 
They  asserted  that  it  was  to  no  purpose  to  deny  them  and  some 
of  their  fellow-dissenters  toleration,  for  they  did  not  differ 
enough  to  justify  such  harsh  treatment.  The  minor  points  which 
distinguished  them  were  not  worthy  of  the  government's  notice. 
They  also  were  Protestants.  Their  interests  were  allied  with 
those  of  the  English  church.  As  to  their  own  people  in  par- 
ticular, they  argued  that  their  loose  government  and  small 
numbers  made  them  necessarily  harmless.  A  democratic  organi- 
zation like  theirs  could  not  endanger  the  public  welfare.  Unlike 
popery,  their  success  would  not  mean  the  unsettling  of  the  civil 
power.  They  had  ever  in  mind  the  stability  of  the  government. 
It  must  not  be  overlooked  that  many  of  them  were  willing  to 
sacrifice  what  they  regarded  their  own  interests  for  the  good  of 
the  nation.  They  recommended  charity  to  the  rulers,  but  not 
for  its  own  sake  or  because  it  was  a  Christian  virtue,  but  because 
it  would  produce  the  best  national  results.  They  appealed  to 
the  magistrates  and  used  arguments  calculated  to  have  weight 
with  them  as  officials.  Such  motives  were  the  logical  accom- 
paniments of  their  low  ideals. 

In  pleading  for  liberty  the  Quakers  laid  much  of  their  stress 
on  the  peculiar  sanctity  of  their  people,  hence  their  more  than 
ordinary  right  to  follow  their  own  choice.  Inasmuch  as  they 
asked  for  a  general  freedom,  they  sought  it  on  New  Testament 
grounds.  The  very  highest  motives  appear.  The  principles  of 
Christianity,  the  rights  of  men,  and  the  nature  of  government  are 
advanced  as  reasons  for  religious  liberty.  Their  writers  were 
few  in  number  and  differed  from  each  other  greatly  as  advocates. 
The  pretentious  claim  of  sanctity  arose  in  the  early  and  crude 
stage  of  Quakerism.  The  higher  motives  are  the  expressions  of 
the  later  and  more  refined  period. 

We  should  take  account  also  of  the  motives  of  the  advocates 
of  intolerance.  They  are  charged  with  utter  selfishness  and 
unscrupulousness.  Such  wholesale  treatment  is  unjustifiable. 
If  we  admit  that  men  might  be  led  to  a  real  acceptance  of  their 
theories,  we   must    admit    that    persecution    might   result    from 


144  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

conviction  of  duty.  We  applaud  the  desire  which  many  of  them 
expressed  to  save  their  neighbors  from  themselves.  It  was  just 
this  that  the  champions  of  compulsion  claimed  to  do.  The 
salvation  of  the  people  was  the  end  they  hoped  to  gain  by  their 
severity.  Conceding  the  Old  Testament  idea  that  coercion  may 
be  conducive  to  righteousness,  we  have  a  logical,  and  it  may  be  a 
sincere,  persecutor.  A  strong  assurance  of  the  righteousness  of 
our  own  theories,  plus  an  overweening  conception  of  their  impor- 
tance and  the  fatality  of  bad  thinking,  are  all  that  is  necessary  to 
make  a  Bloody  Mary  out  of  an  absolute  queen.  Logic  has 
played  no  insignificant  part  in  Christendom's  doctrines  of  intol- 
erance. 

Uniformity  was  advocated  on  the  ground  that  it  alone  would 
support  Christianity  and  the  state.  And  surely  these  were  laud- 
able aims.  That  real  fear  for  the  safety  of  these  institutions 
did  exist  it  is  easy  to  believe.  The  distorted  conception  of 
Christianity  which  must  prevail  when  it  becomes  allied  with  the 
management  of  civil  affairs  readily  accounts  for  such  fears.  But 
even  to  men  of  such  ideas  Christianity  was  the  hope  of  the 
world.  It  must  be  preserved.  To  pity  men  tormented  with 
such  fears  and  driven  to  such  extremities  is  surely  proper,  but 
wholesale  denunciation  is  not  becoming  in  any. 

That  many  of  the  supporters  of  intolerance  were  insincere  is 
evident.  The  church  was  their  tool.  Greed  of  gain,  longing 
for  power,  and  hope  of  continuing  their  immoral  living  called 
forth  many  attempts  to  stamp  out  purer  doctrines.  Their  theory 
was  un-Christian  at  the  very  best,  their  practice  was  diabolical. 

The  question  of  relative  effectiveness  has  no  bearing  upon 
the  merits  of  this  case.  There  is  no  evidence  that  high  ideals 
were  held  in  abeyance  because  the  pressing  of  low  motives  would 
reach  the  end  sooner.  It  is  the  constitution  of  man  that  pre- 
vents the  attainment  of  high  ideals  at  a  single  bound.  It  was 
human,  indeed,  in  the  sixteenth  century  to  brand  the  holding  of 
the  radical  doctrine  of  liberty  of  conscience  as  fanaticism.  The 
idea  was  held  to  be  preposterous.  And  such  it  was  to  the 
un-Christian  mind.  The  Great  Teacher,  however,  enunciated  it, 
as  well  as  other  lofty  conceptions,  in   the    first    century.      And, 


CONCLUSION  145 

strange  as  it  may  seem,  his  disciples  grasped  the  thought,  and  it 
was  wrought  into  their  characters. 

The  preconception  of  the  English  mind  made  the  reception 
of  this  truth  difficult.  It  did  not  harmonize  with  the  established 
views  of  statecraft.  It  was  antagonistic  to  the  prevailing  notion 
of  the  church.  These  were  the  conditions,  whatever  they  ought 
to  have  been.  Our  inquiry  is  :  In  such  circumstances,  what 
action  would  produce  the  desired  sentiment  most  readily  ?  The 
idealist  is  repugnant,  He  is  regarded  as  a  visionary.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  change  advocated  by  the  mere  tolerationist 
is  an  advance  from  the  position  of  the  past,  and  is  conceded  to 
be  less  impracticable. 

Such  a  leader  is  not  so  far  ahead  of  the  host  as  to  lose  his 
influence  over  it.  Mill  was  not  entirely  correct  in  saying  that 
*'  the  great  writers  to  whom  the  world  owes  what  religious  liberty 
it  possesses,  have  mostly  asserted  freedom  of  conscience  as  an 
indefeasible  right,  and  denied  absolutely  that  a  human  being  is 
accountable  to  others  for  his  religious  belief."  "^ 

The  tolerationists  were  very  assiduous  in  propagating  their 
ideas.  They  advanced  from  point  to  point  and  carried  man}^ 
with  them.  They,  above  all,  were  feared  by  the  intolerant. 
Many  thought  that  the  idealists  could  be  vanquished  with  epi- 
thets, but  the  more  moderate  demand  of  the  tolerationist  called 
forth  strenuous  efforts  of  opposition.  And,  in  giving  this  class 
its  due  meed  of  praise,  it  must  be  recalled  that  it  was  ever  in 
advance  of  the  times.  While  it  was  made  up  of  conservatives, 
they  were  still  leaders.  Their  ideals  were  low,  but  from  that 
very  fact  they  did  not  give  such  offense  to  those  with  still  lower 
standards.  It  is  natural  for  men  to  wish  for  sympath}^  in  their 
teachers,  even  if  the  sympathy  results  from  their  common  fail- 
ings. The  hypotheses  of  the  tolerationist  and  the  coercionist 
were  in  general  identical.  In  the  production  of  sentiment  noth- 
ing is  so  indispensable  as  unanimity  in  the  underlying  principles. 
It  is  true  that  the  tolerationists  were  illogical,  and  their  argu- 
ments alone  would  never  have  led  to  liberty,  but  they  were 
useful    in  weaning  the   public   from    intolerance.     Among  their 

"9  Oti  Liberty.,  p.  20.  ' 


146  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

number  were  many  men  of  ability.  They  were  men  of  affairs. 
Their  influence  in  forwarding  this  movement  is  very  evident. 
To  them  is  due  much  more  of  commendation  than  an  analysis  of 
their  ideals  and  motives  at  this  present  time  would  lead  one  to 
suppose. 

The  great  contest  is  not  yet  entirely  ended.  But  what  a 
glorious  accomplishment !  Centuries  have  been  devoted  to  it. 
Many  of  the  renowned  of  earth  have  had  a  part  in  it.  Yet  by 
far  the  most  honorable  part  was  taken  by  men  who  in  their  day 
were  accounted  as  the  offscouring  of  the  earth  and  are  yet 
unknown  to  fame.  Christianity  has  been  its  inspiration  ;  the 
good  of  humanity  its  aim.  The  end  now  attained  justifies  the 
expenditure  made.  Christian  ideals  are  coming  into  favor. 
The  shackles  of  the  human  mind  are  well-nigh  thrown  off.  The 
prospects  of  England  are  more  glorious  than  her  history. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Sir  Thomas  More,  Utopia. 

John  Strype,  Ecclesiastical  Memorials,  Vol.  I,  pp.  552  f. 

John  Strype,  Annals.     Life  of  John  Whitgift,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  77. 

John  Knox,  Works,  Vol.  V,  pp.  217  f. 

1552.     Calender  of  State  Papers.     Domestic  Series,  157. 

1556.  A  Short  Treatise  of  Politike  power  and  of  the  true  obedience  which 
Subjects  owe  to  Kings  and  other  civill  Goveners.  "  Commonwealth 
Tracts,"  1639-41.     (Newberry  Library.) 

WiLKiNS,  Consilia,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  776. 

1573.  An  Answere  to  a  Certeji  Libell  intituled.  An  admonition  to  the  Parlia- 
ment.    By  John  Whitgifte.     (B.  M.  697,  F  11.     London.) 

Richard  Hooker,  Ecclesiastical  Polity,  Vol.  Ill  ;  Keble  edition,  revised,  B. 
VIII,  App.  No.  I. 

Edwin  Sandys,  Sermons;  Parker  Society  edition.     (B.  M.,  Ac.  2077  (7).) 

Roger  Hutchinson,  Works;  Parker  Society  edition.  (B,  M.,  Ac.  2077 
(9).)     Secoftd  Sermon  on  oppression.  Affliction  and  Patience,  pp.  323  f. 

Het  Bloedig  Toonel,  Deel  11,  pp.  694-712  ;  Hansard  Knollys  Society.  Broad- 
mead  Records,  Hist.  Int.,  p.  Ixvii. 

1573.  Thomas  Cartwright,  ^  Replye  to  (an)  answere  ma{de  of)  Doctor 
{Whitgift),  etc.  (B.  M.  108,  b.  4.)  Also  vf  rote.  Be  Ipes  for  Discovery,  etc., 
which  was  reprinted  in  1648. 

1550  (?)•     John  Hooper,  Early  Writings ;  Parker  Society. 

1582.  Robert  Browne,  A  Booke  which  sheweth  the  life  and  Manners  of 
all  true  Christians  and  also  there  goeth  a  Treatise  before  of  Reforjnation 
without  tarrying  for  anie,  etc.     (B.  M.,  C.  37,  e.  57.     Middleburg.) 

1583.  Richard  Harrison,  A  Little  Treatise  upon  the  first  verse  of  the  122. 
Psahn.     (B.  M.  3090,  a.  15.) 

1588.  I.  G.  M.,  Some  laid  open  in  his  coulers  wherein  the  indifferent  reader 
may  easily  see  howe  wretchedly  and  loosely  he  hath  handeled  the  cause 
against  M.  Penri.     (B.  M.  848,  a.  10.) 

1589.  R.  Some,  A  Godly  Treatise,  Wherein  are  examined  and  Confuted 
many  execrable  fancies  out  and  holden,  partly  by  Henry  Barrow  and 
Joh7i  Greenwood,  partly  by  other  of  the  Anabaptistical  order.  (B.  M., 
bbb.  17.) 

1590.  George  Gyffard,  ^  Plain  Declaration  that  our  Brow?iists  be  full 
Donatists.     (B.  M,  697,  c.  27.     London.) 

1596.  A  Trtte  confession  of  the  Faith  and  Humble  Acknowledgement  of  the 
alegeance  which  we  his  Majesties  subjects,  falsely  called  Brownists  doo 
hould  towards  God,  atid yield  to  his  Majestie  and  all  other  that  are  over 
us  in  the  Lord.     (B.  M.  4103,  c.) 

147 


148  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

1593.     J.  Strype,  A7inals,No\.  IV,  No.  XCIV,  pp.  197  f. 

1607.  "  A  petition  for  liberty  of  Conscience  by  the  '  rigid  Puritans,'  "  Neal's 
History  of  the  Puritans,  Vol.  I,  pp.  436  f. 

1607.  Netherlands,  A  Confession  of  Faith  of  certayne  English  people. 
(B.  M.  3506,  a.  31.) 

1609.  An  humble  Supplication  for  Toleration  .  ...  by  late  silenced  and 
deprived  Ministers.     (Dr.  Williams'  library.) 

161 1.  Thomas  Helwoys,  ^«  advertisement,  or  admottition  unto  the  Con- 
gregations, which  men  call  the  New  Fryelers.     (B.  M.  702,  c,  32.) 

1 61 4.  John  Robinson,  Of  Religious  communion  Private  and  Public.  (B.  M. 
4323.  b.) 

161 4.  Leonard  Busher,  Religious  Peace,  or  a  plea  for  liberty  of  Con- 
science, etc.     (B.  M.,  E.  334  (7)-) 

1616.  Henry  Jacob,  A  Confession  attd  protestation  of  the  faith  of  certaine 
Christians.     (B.  M,  4103,  a.  19.) 

1623.  Edmond  Jessop,  a  Discovery  of  the  errors  of  the  Ettglish  Anabaptists. 
(B.  M.  4135,  bb.  6.     London.) 

1624.  Sir  John  Hayward,  Of  Supremacie  in  Affaires  of  Religion.  (B.  M., 
T.  774  (3).     London.) 

1641.     J.  Taylor,  Religious  Enemies.     (B.  M.  4135,  a.     London.) 

1 64 1.     Katherine  Chidley,  The  fustification  of  the  Independent  Churches 

of  Christ.     (B.  AL,  E.  174  (7)-) 
164 1.      The  Humble  Petition  of  the  Brownists.     (B.  M.,  E.  178  (10).) 
1641.      }.  Canne,  Syons  Prerogative  Royal.    (B.  M.  697,  a.  53.    Amsterdam.) 

164 1.  Thomas  Edwards,  Reasons  against  the  independent  govern7nent  oj 
particular  Congregations.     (B.  M.,  E.  167  (18).      London.) 

1642.  Tom  Nash,  his  Cost.     (B.  M.  no  (5).     York  and  London.) 

1642.  W.  Castle,  The  fesuits  undertnining  of  Parliaments  and  Protestants. 
(B.  M.,  E.  124(7).) 

1643.  A  Short  History  of  the  Attabaptists.     (B.  M.  4661,  b.     York.) 

1643.  T.  Goodwin,  P.  Nye,  W.  Bridge,  S.  Simpson,  and  J.  Buronghss, 
An  Apologeticall  Narration.      (B.  M.  100(14)-) 

1643.  Liberty  of  Conscience,  etc.     (B.  M.  100,  d.  (69).) 

1644.  Against  Universall  Libertie  of  Conscience.    (B.  M.  4105,  a.    London.) 
1644.     Roger  Williams,  The  Bloudy  Tenent  of  Persecution. 

1644.      The  Compassionate  Samaritane  Unbinding  the  Conscience.    (B.  M.,  E. 

1202(11).) 
1644.     C.  Blackwood,  Stommig  of  Antichrist  in   his  strotigest   Garrisons. 

(B.  M.,  E.  22  (15).) 
1644.     Reformed  Presbytry  opposing   Tyrannical  Presbytry,  etc.     (B.  M.,  E. 

1181(5).) 
1644.     A.  Steuart,  The  Second  Part  of  the  Duply  M.  S.  alias  two  brethren 

(B.  M.,  E.  20(7).) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  1 49 

1644.  Griffith  Williams,  Bishop  of  Ossory,  The  Rights  of  Kings  both 
in  Church  and  State.  "Commonwealth  Tracts,"  1642-4.  (Newberry 
Library.) 

1644.  John  Milton,  Areopagitica.    (B.  M.,  E.  18  (9).) 

1645.  Young  Martin  Mar  Prelate,  The  Arraignment  of  Mr .  Persecu- 
tion.    (B.  M.  io8,b.  (52).) 

1645.      The  Ancient  Bounds,  or  Liberty  of  Conscience,  etc.   (B.  M.,  E.  287  (3).) 

1645.  G.  Gillespie,  IVholesome  Severity  reconciled  with  Christian  Liberty. 
(B.  M.,E.  24(5).) 

1646.  Wm'  Dell,  Utiiformity  Examined.     (B.  M.,  E.  322  (12).     London.) 
1646.     John  Goodwin,  Hagio  Mastrix.     (B.  M.,  E.  374  (i).    London.) 
1646.     A    Short   Defettsative    about    Church    Governmejtt,    Toleration    ana 

Petitions  about  these  things.     (B.  M.,  E.  334  (p.  46).) 
1646,     A  Letter  of  Advice  unto  the  Ministers  Assembled  at    Westminister. 

(B.M.,E.  334(13).) 
1646.     J.  Saltmarsh,  The  Smoke  in  the  Tetnple.     (B.  M.,  E.  316  (14).) 
1646.     Thos.  Edwards,  Gangraena.     (B.  M.,  E.  323  (2).     London.) 
1646.     John   Goodwin,  Hagio  Mastix  or  Scourge  of  the  Saints  displayed, 

etc.     (B.  M.,  E.  374  (i).) 
1646.     J.    Burroughs,   Irenicum,    To  the  lovers   of  Peace  and   Truth.     (B. 

M.,  E.  306  (9).) 
1646.     J.  Saltmarsh,  Groans  for  Liberty,  etc.     (B.  M.,  E.  327  (20).) 

1646.  J.  M(ayne),  D.D.,  The  Difference  about  Church  Government  ended. 
(B.  M.,  E.  339  (8).) 

1647.  Thos.  Edwards,  The  casting  down  of  the  last  and  Strongest  hold 
of  Satan.     (B.  M„  E.  394  (6j.) 

1647.  Daniel  Featley,  D.D.,  The  Dippers  dipt,  or  The  Anabaptists  Dueled 
and  Plunged  over  Head  and  ears  at  a  disputation  in  Sotithwark, 
(University  of  Chicago  Library.) 

1647.  Robert  Baillie,  Minister  at  Glasgow,  Disswasive  from  the 
Errors  of  the  Time,  Pt.  2,  "  Anabaptism  the  fountaine  of  Independency, 
Brownisim,  Autinomy,  FamiHsme."     (Newberry  Library.) 

1647.  Jeremy  Taylor,  Liberty  of  Prophesying ;  Heber  edition.  Vols.  VII 
and  VIII. 

1647.  Samuel  Richardson,  The  Necessity  of  Toleration  in  Matters  of 
Religion.     (B.  M.,  E.  407  (18).     London.) 

1647.  Christopher  Cartwright,  The  Magistrates  Authority  in  Matters 
of  Religion.     (B.  M.,  E.  401  (32).     London.) 

1648.  Helps  for  the  Discovery  of  the  Truth  in  point  of  Toleration.  (B.  M., 
E.  423  (19).      London.)      Reprint  from  T.  Cartwright. 

1649.  Philopatrius  Philalethes,  The  Depths  of  Satan  Discovered. 
Tracts,  V,  1649.     (Newberry  Library.) 

1649.  Thomas  Whitfield,  Minister,  A  discourse  of  Liberty  of  Con- 
science.    (Dr.  Williams'  library.) 


I  50  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

1649.  City-Ministers  unmasked,  or  the  Hypocrisie  &^  Iniquity  of  Fifty 
nine  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  clergy  in  and  about  the  City  of  London. 
"Commonwealth  Tracts,"  1641-9.     (Newberry  Library.) 

1649.  S.  Rutherford,  A  Free  Disputatiofi  against  pretended  Liberty  of 
Conscience.     (B.  M.,  E.  567  (2).) 

1650.  A  Pack  of  Puritans.     (4103  e.) 

1650.  L.  MOLINAENS,  The  Power  of  the  Christian  Magistrate  in  Sacred 
Things.     (B.  M.  1366  (4).) 

165 1 .  C.  Walker  (?),  The  High  Court  of  fustic  c  of  Cromwells  New  Slaugh- 
ter House  in  England.     (B.  M.  1951  (9).) 

1653.  John  Goodwin,  Thirty  Queries  jjtodestly  Propounded  in  order  to  a 
discovery  of  the  truth.     (B.  M.  689  (4).     London.) 

1653.  Geo.  Fox,  Warning  to  the  Rulers  of  Etigland  not  to  usurp  dotninion 
over  the  Conscience.     (B.  M.,  E.  727  (9).) 

1654.  Oliver  Cromwell,  His  Highness  the  Lord  Protectors  Speech  to 
the  Parliament,  Sept.  4,  16^4.  "  Commonwealth  Tracts,"  1654-5.  (New- 
berry Library.) 

1655.  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland  Conunon  wealth.  A  true  state  of  the 
case  of  liberty  of  Conscience  in  Commonwealth  of  England.  (B.  M.,  E. 
848  (12).     London.) 

1659.  John  Milton,  A  Treatise  of  Civil  Power  in  Ecclesiastical  Causes. 
(B.  M.  1019,  b.  (18).) 

1659.  A  Declaration  of  the  Faith  and  Order,  Owned  a7id  practised  in  the 
Congregational  Churches  in  England.  Savoy,  1658.  (Dr.  Williams' 
library.) 

1 660.  A  Brief  Cottfession  or  Declaration  set  forth  by  many  of  us  who  are 
{falsely)  called  Anabaptists.     (B.  M.,  E.  1017  (14).) 

1660.  G.  Lawson,  Politeia  Sacra  et  Civilis.     (B.  M.,  E.  1024  (2).) 

1 66 1.  John  Sturgion,  A  plea  for  tolleration  of  opinions  and  persuasions 
in  matters  of  religion,  etc.     (B.  M.,  E.  1086  (3).) 

1661 .  G.  Bishop,  An  Illumination  to  Open  the  Eyes  of  the  Papists  and  of  all 
other  Sects.     (B.  M.  415  i,  b.) 

1 66 1.  Geo.  Fox,  For  the  King  and  both  Houses  of  Parliament  sitting  at 
Westminister,  etc.     (B.  M,,  4152,  c.  (21).     London.) 

1662.  W.  Prynne,  a  Moderate,  Seasonable  apology,  etc.     (B.  M.  287,  g.  27 

1663.  Henry  Savage,  The  Dew  of  Hertnon.  Which  fell  upon  the  Hill  of 
Sion.     (Newberry  Library.) 

1665.     A    Tolleration  sent  down  frotn  Heaven  to  Preach,  etc.     (B.  M.  224, 

a.  42  (46).) 
1667.     J.  O.     A    Peace- Offering^  in  aji   apology  and  hmnble  plea  for  htdul- 

gence  and  Libertie  of  Conscience,  etc.     (B.  IVL   4139.  d.)     Also   Owen's 
Works. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I  5  I 

1667.  Thomas  Tomkins,  Inconveniences  of  Toleration.    (Newberry  Library.) 

1668.  (J.Corbet?),  A  Second  Discourse  of  the  Religion  of  England,  etc. 
(B.  M.  875,  e.  58  (2).) 

1668.     (C.  WoLSELEY  ?),  Liberty  of  Conscience  the  Magistrates  Interest.     (B. 

M,  4103,  e.) 
1668.     (R.  Perrinchief  ?),  A  Discourse  on  Toleration.     (B.  M.  4105,  a.) 

1668.  (R.  Perrinchief  ?),  Indulgence  not  fustified.     (B.  M.  701,  c.  42  (i).) 

1669.  John  Owen,  Truth  and  Innocence  vindicated  in  a  survey  of  a  dis- 
course (by  S.  Palmer)  concerniftg  Ecclesiastical  Polity.  (B.  M.  4103,  b.) 
Owen  also  wrote  pamphlets  on  Liberty  of  Conscience,  hidulgence  and 
Toleration,  and  Two  Questions,  etc.     Owen's  Works. 

i66g.     S.  Parker,  A  Discourse  of  Ecclesiastical  Politie.     (B.  M.  852,  f.  (5).) 

1670.  Sir  Robert  L'Estrange,  Toleration  discussed  in  two  dialogues. 
(B.  M.  874,  d.  24.     London.) 

1 670  (?).  John  Owen,  D.D.,  An  Account  of  the  grounds  and  reasons  on  which 
Protestant  Dissenters  derive  their  liberty.     (B.  M.  105,  f.  20  (18).) 

1670.  Toleration  Disproved  and  Cojtdemned  By  the  Authority  and  con- 
vincing reason,  etc.     (B.  M.  4106,  c.     Oxford.) 

1670.  P.  (W.),  The  Great  Case  of  Liberty  of  Conscience  once  more  briefly 
Debated  and  Defended.     (B.  M.,  T.  407  (5).) 

1675.  Geo.  Fox,  Christian  liberty  co77unended  and  persecution  condemned. 
(B.  M.  4152,  c.  (23).) 

1 676.  Geo.  Fox,  To  all  Magistrates  and  people  in  Christendom  and  else- 
where,    (B.  M.  4151,  c.  (46).     London.) 

1678.  J.  Nalsom,  The  True  Liberty  and  Donmiion  of  Conscience,  vindicated, 
etc.     (B.  M.  1113,  h.  I  (i).     London.) 

1 68 1.  Liberty  of  Conscience  itt  its  Order  to  Universal  Peace.  (B,  M.  116,  c. 
25.) 

1682.  S.  BoLDE,  A  Plea  for  Moderation  vs.  Dissenters.    (B.  M.  698,  1. 1.  (3).) 
1682.     S.  BoLDE,  Sermon  against  Persecution.     (B,  M.  4106,  b.) 

1682.      The  Coftforfnists  Second  Plea  for  Nott- Conformists.     (B.  M.  4136,  aaa 

4  (2).) 
1682.     Nath.   Bisbie,   D.D.,   Prosecution  vs.  Persecution.      (Dr.   Williams' 

library.) 

1682.  Geo.  Fox,  Concernittg  persecution  in  all  ages  ujitil  this  day.  (B.  M. 
41 5 1,  c.  (51).     London.) 

1683.  Geo.  Fox,  To  all  rulers  and  magistrates  to  be  tender  and  take  heed, 
etc.    (B.  M.  415  I,  aa.  57  (12).) 

1683.  Philip  Nye,  The  Lawfulness  of  the  Oath  of  Supremacy,  etc.  (B.  M. 
105,  b.  (47).     London.) 

1685.  Toleration  and  Liberty  of  Conscience  considered  and  proved  impracti- 
cable.    (B.  M.  698,  h.  18  (10).     London.) 

1687.  Indulgence  to  Tender  Conscience  shewn  to  be  most  reasonable  and 
Christian.     (B.  M.,  T.  763  (16).     London.) 


152  CONTEST  FOR  LIBERTY  OF  CONSCIENCE 

1687.     Advice  to  Freeholders.     "  Eng.  Hist.  Tracts."     (Newberry  Library.) 

1687-8.  British  Museum  Tracts  {T.  76 t,).  This  collection  contains  forty- 
three  pamphlets  on  this  subject. 

1689.  Thomas  Long,  Exeter,  The  case  of  persecution,  charged  on  the  Church 
of  England.     (B.  M.,  T.  750  (8).     London.) 

1689.     John  Locke,  "First  Letter  on  Toleration,"  Works. 

1689.  Liberty  of  Conscience  explicated  and  vindicated.  B.  M.,  T.  1675  (2)- 
London.) 

1689.  By  a  Learned  Country-Gentleman,  Liberty  of  Conscience  Asserted 
and  Vindicated.     (B.  M.,  T.  1675  (31).) 

1689.  Thomas  Long,  B.D.,  The  Letter  for  Toleration  {by  J.  L.)  decipher  d, 
etc.     (B.  M.  4136,  aaa.  33.) 

1690.  Jonas  Proast,  The  Argument  of  the  Letter  com.  Toleration  considered, 
etc.     (B.  M.,  116  c.  (64).) 

1705.      An    Historical  Account  of  Comprehension    and    Toleration.      (Dr. 

Williams'  library.) 
1719-20.     Edward  Hyde,  Lord  Clarendon,  History  of  the  Rebellion  and 

Civil  Wars  in  Ireland.     (B.  M.  809,  K.  (18).) 

1719.  Equal  Liberty  of  Conscience  asserted.    (B,  M.  698,  i.  10(1).      London.) 

1720.  England,  fews  in  —  An  historical  treatise  concerning  fews  and  fuda- 
ism  in  Engla7id.     (B.  M.,  T.  1750  (7).) 

1721.  Liberty  without  Licentiousness.     (B.  M.  4474-  b.  51.     London.) 

1 734.     Ancient  and  Modern  Liberty  stated  and compar''d.    (B.  M.,  T.  1 667  (2). 

London.) 
1738.     Thomas  Ckosby,  History  of  the  Baptists. 
1766.     Freedom  of  Speech  and  Writing  upon  public  affairs  considered.  (B.  M. 

522,  k.  II.     London.) 
1785.      Jos.    Priestley,    The   Importattce   and  extent  of  Free  Inquiry   in 

Matters  of  Religion.     (B,  M,  4473,  c.  8  (10).     Birmingham.) 
1787.     Jos.  Priestley,  A  Letter  to  the  Right  Honourable    IV.  Pitt  on  the 

subjects  of  Toleration,  etc.     (B.  M.  687,  g,  35  (4).    London.) 
1790  (?).     Geo.  Walker,  The  Dissenters  Plea.     (B.  M.  4135,  cc.     Birming- 
ham.) 
1790,     A    Collection  of  Testimonies  in  favor  of  Religious  Liberty,  in  case  of 

Dissenters,  Catholics,  and  fews.      By  a  Christian  Politician.     (Dr. 

Williams'  library.) 
1809,     Chr,  Wyvill,  Intolerance  the  Disgrace  of  Christians,  not  the  fault 

of  their  religion.     (Dr.  Williams'  library.) 
1815,     Liberty   Civil  I  attd  Religious.     By  a  Friend  of  Both,     (B.  M.  521, 

h,  29,     London.) 
1824.     Locke  s  opinio fis  7ipon    Toleratioft  exa^nined,  in  a  letter  addressed  to 

Lord  Liverpool.    (B.  M.  8145,  a.      Dublin.) 
1830.     Joseph  IvysifEY,  History  of  the  English  Baptists. 
1841,     Edwin  Sandys,  ^.fr;-^^?/^,     Parker  Society. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  I  5  3 

1846.  E.  B,  Underhill,  editor,  Tracts  on  Liberty  of  Cottscience  and  Perse- 
cution.    Hansard  Knolly's  Society, 

1849.     John  M.  Baxter,  The  Church  History  of  England, 

Bishop  Burnet,  Our  Own  Times, 

Benjamin  Evans,  D,D.,  Early  English  Baptists. 

John  Stuart  Mill,  On  Liberty. 

Andrew  Fuller,  Works. 

Robert  Robinson,  Works. 

Robert  Hall,  Works. 

John  Bunyan,  Works. 

Report  of  Proceedings  of  the  Second  General  Council  of  the  Presbyterian 
Alliance,     (Library  of  McCormick  Seminary.) 

David  Masson,  The  Life  of  fohn  Milton,  Vol.  HI.  pp.  98  f. 

Chas.  Hardwick,  History  of  the  Articles. 

Philip  Schaff,  Creeds  of  ChristeJtdom,     "  Belgic  Confession,"  in  Vol.  HI. 

John  Robinson,  Works,  Ashton  edition.  Vol,  H, 

BoGUE  AND  Bennett,  History  of  Dissenters. 

Abbey,  English  Church  and  Bishops,  Vol.  I. 

Hanbury,  Hitorical  Memorials,  Vol.  HI. 

Skeats  and  Miall,  History  of  the  Free  Churches  of  England. 

The  fewish  Year  Book,  1 896-7. 

J.  Stoughton,  Religion  in  England. 

H.  M.  Dexter,  Congregationalism  as  Seen  in  its  Literature. 

Phillips  Brooks,  Tolerance. 

Bishop  M.  Creighton,  Persecution  and  Tolerance, 


UNIVERSITY  OB  CAIKORNIA  LIBRARY 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  las.  date  statnped  below. 

u  A   i«.  7 S  cents  on  first  day  overdue 
Fine  schedule.  25  cen«       ^^^^^^  ^^^  ^^^^^^^ 

One  dollar  on  seventh  day  overdue. 


.^•^^ 


^^ri>y  it  1955  1^ 

tSNov'GOEl 
}N  STACKS 


MAY  111979; 


NOV  loiaeOficca  ^y^   ^^ 


#^ 


.100m-l2,'46(A2012sl6)4120 


VC  32265 


^ 


t 


'%. 


^  .t 


'^ 


•>fe<^l 


f'i^- 


W, 


--%%^^''    " 

^y.     ^ 


'%' 


1 


^^.,  t 


■J 


1 


.^*W 


'%t^ 


^r 


